About those gospel writers

[Trodon]

The fact that none of the gospels nor Acts specifically mention the Jewish Uprising of 66 to 73 AD indicates, although it cannot prove, that all of them were written before the Uprising. I am unaware of anything in the gospels or Acts that could not have been written before 66. If anyone else is aware of something, please post it.

After the Uprising Christians argued that the failure of the Uprising was God's punishment to the Jews for rejecting their Messiah. A gospel writer could have strengthened his argument that Jesus was the Christ by mentioning the Uprising.

Meh…I think (as someone who no longer believes in this stuff) I’ll take the word of mainstream Christian theologians over your vague opinion.

Mark is by most all accounts the earliest written. And according to the New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV), in its introduction to Mark states:
“Although the Gospel is anonymous, an ancient tradition ascribes it to John Mark, who is supposed to have composed it at Rome as a summary of Peter’s preaching. Modern scholars, however, find little evidence to support this tradition. Mark is by far the shortest of the four canonical Gospels and is generally thought to be the earliest, and to have been used in the composition of both Matthew and Luke. Because of the vague and indefinite references to the destruction of Jerusalem in Mark 13, the Gospel is thought to have been composed just prior to the widespread Jewish popular revolt that began in 66CE…”

The introduction to Matthew states:
“Matthew was written following the first Jewish revolt against Rome and the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE by the Roman general and eventual emperor, Titus. This monumental historical event is most likely referred to in 21.43-44 and 22.7.”

The introduction to Acts states:
“It is reasonable to date Acts sometime after Luke’s Gospel, which may be placed around 85-95CE.”

This same Bible estimates Luke to have been written circa 70-95CE; John to have been written circa 80-90CE.

Those are estimates. They may be true. I do not know. Neither do you. Rather than relying on the assertions of others I have explained in my own words why I think Mark, Luke, and Acts were probably written before the Jewish Uprising of 66 to 73 AD, and why I think Matthew and John may have been written before the Uprising.

Having read the New Testament eight times in seven English translations I have not found anything in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Luke that could not have been written before 66 AD. If you have, please post it. Explain in your own words why it had to be written later.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Copyrights did not exist back then.

You appear to miss the point. The contents alone do not actually give evidence of when the books was written. Someone trying to write a book today as if it were written by a witness to the Lizardman invasion of 1403 would try not to include anachronisms from 1492 or 1953.

If you don't know who wrote it or why, you can't be sure if details were missing because they weren't available or because they chose not to include the details.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I have explained in my own words why I think Mark, Luke, and Acts were probably written before the Jewish Uprising of 66 to 73 AD, and why I think Matthew and John may have been written before the Uprising....

And fta has stated in his own words why your logic has a hole in it.

Explain in your own words why it had to be written later.

One doesn't have to have a different date in mind to point out that your argument is not based on a reliable estimate of the contents. Your estimates may even be correct, but fi the path you use to get there is fallacious, it makes accuracy on your part more of a coincidence than a logical conclusion.

 

[fta]

If your history book about World War II has a copyright of 1946 it would prove that it was written before the Korean War. Copyrights did not exist back then.

My point is that we have no manuscripts of the New Testament dating back to the first century. The oldest surviving portions are fragments from the second century. Even if at least some portions of the New Testament were originally written in the first century, the text as we have it today has been tampered with by later scribes and editors, e.g. the resurrection in Mark, the adulterous woman in John, etc. With regard to Luke-Acts, Wikipedia (which is at least as trustworthy as the New Testament) says:

There are two major textual variants of Luke-Acts, the Western text-type and the Alexandrian. The oldest complete Alexandrian manuscripts date from the 4th century and the oldest Western ones from the 6th, with fragments and citations going back to the 3rd. Western texts of Acts are 10% longer than Alexandrian texts, the additions tending to enhance the Jewish rejection of the Messiah and the role of the Holy Spirit, in ways that are stylistically different from the rest of Acts.[27] These conflicts suggest that Luke-Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.[28] The majority of scholars prefer the Alexandrian (shorter) text-type over the Western as the more authentic, but this same argument would favour the Western over the Alexandrian for the gospel of Luke, as in that case the Western version is the shorter. The debate therefore continues.

So, which version of Luke-Acts is the Word of God?

Because Josephus and the author of Luke and Acts, who many if not most Bible scholars think was St. Luke, write about many of the same events one should not be surprised by similarities.

Whether the anonymous author of Luke-Acts used Josephus or not is disputed. However, the evidence that Luke-Acts were actually written by "Dr. Luke the bosom buddy of St. Paul" is flimsy.

Cassels again (an oldie but a goodie):

The position, therefore, is simply this: we are asked to believe in the reality of a great number of miraculous and supernatural occurrences which, obviously, are antecedently incredible, upon the assurance of an anonymous work of whose existence there is no distinct evidence till more than a century after the events narrated, and to which an author's name -- against which there are strong objections -- is first ascribed by tradition towards the end of the second century. Of the writer to whom the work is thus attributed we know nothing beyond the casual mention of his name in some Pauline Epistles. If it were admitted that this Luke did actually write the book, we should not be justified in believing the reality of such stupendous miracles upon his bare statement.

 

[funinspace]

Meh…I think (as someone who no longer believes in this stuff) I’ll take the word of mainstream Christian theologians over your vague opinion.

Mark is by most all accounts the earliest written. And according to the New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV), in its introduction to Mark states:
“Although the Gospel is anonymous, an ancient tradition ascribes it to John Mark, who is supposed to have composed it at Rome as a summary of Peter’s preaching. Modern scholars, however, find little evidence to support this tradition. Mark is by far the shortest of the four canonical Gospels and is generally thought to be the earliest, and to have been used in the composition of both Matthew and Luke. Because of the vague and indefinite references to the destruction of Jerusalem in Mark 13, the Gospel is thought to have been composed just prior to the widespread Jewish popular revolt that began in 66CE…”

The introduction to Matthew states:
“Matthew was written following the first Jewish revolt against Rome and the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE by the Roman general and eventual emperor, Titus. This monumental historical event is most likely referred to in 21.43-44 and 22.7.”

The introduction to Acts states:
“It is reasonable to date Acts sometime after Luke’s Gospel, which may be placed around 85-95CE.”

This same Bible estimates Luke to have been written circa 70-95CE; John to have been written circa 80-90CE.

Those are estimates. They may be true. I do not know. Neither do you. Rather than relying on the assertions of others I have explained in my own words why I think Mark, Luke, and Acts were probably written before the Jewish Uprising of 66 to 73 AD, and why I think Matthew and John may have been written before the Uprising.

Having read the New Testament eight times in seven English translations I have not found anything in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Luke that could not have been written before 66 AD. If you have, please post it. Explain in your own words why it had to be written later.

Can you recognize things like the below in your English Bible reading?

From the introduction to Luke in the New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV):
“The initial four verses of the book are a single Greek sentence that forms a highly stylized introductory statement typically found in ancient historiographical writings. The Greek if formal and refined in a fashion that would have been familiar to well-educated citizen of the Greco-Roman era.”

Can you recognize when English NT quotes are sourced from the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew, without footnotes or researched sources? Can you, just by reading the English translations (w/o looking at footnotes or researched sources), have a clue as to what was the source language and find clues as to where it was written?

I can’t do these things. I can’t read ancient Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. I would bet that most of those theologians that aided in the NRSV Bible compilation know more than one of those languages very well. They also probably have a far better comprehension of the ancient cultures from Rome to Judea. Yeah, I’ve read KJV, NIV, NRSV, and even some NAB, but so flipping what? I’ve also read much of the Schocken’s 5 Books of Moses. But I know when to punt and trust those with expertise on shit I don’t have but the vaguest clue. I also recognize that I will learn far more by reading analysis by people far more qualified than I, than by my own feeble readings in the far removed English.

I didn’t say the Gospels had to be written later. I find the mainstream Christian theologian estimates to be reasonable, and suggested as much. By emphasizing how many English translations you have read, you have may have demonstrated your lack of expertise. Yeah, your earlier estimate is possible, but I don’t think you have even gotten it up to plausible. It is also possible that there never was a specific human Jesus upon whom this new God was built upon. Possibilities are a fun greased pig with which one can play… Plausible and probable are much more interesting.

 

[thentian]

Missed the point?

Or he could have strengthened his argument by making Jesus prophesy the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple? Oh, wait...

He could mention these prophesies, and then point out that they happened after the Jews rejected Jesus as their Messiah.

I think you missed my point. Here is an indication in the text that it was written -after- 70 AD. What do you consider to be more likely? Miraculous prophecy, or deceitful chronicling? The latter is a common occurrence even today, the former not so much.

By the way, note that the Gospel of Mark -which by most scholars is considered to have been written before the war in 70 - does not mention these prophecies, whereas Matthew and Luke -considered by most scholars to have been written after it - do have them.

 

[Juma]

Having read the New Testament eight times in seven English translations I have not found anything in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Luke that could not have been written before 66 AD.

How about the "Prophecy" of the destruction of the temple?

 

[Trodon]

Having read the New Testament eight times in seven English translations I have not found anything in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Luke that could not have been written before 66 AD.

How about the "Prophecy" of the destruction of the temple?

Even if one believes that Jesus was not the Messiah, not the Son of God, and that God does not exist, it is plausible that an insightful person living in Judea in the first part of the first century AD would suspect that the growing animosities between the Jews and the Romans were moving in the direction of a war that would result in the destruction of the Temple.

 

[Trodon]

And fta has stated in his own words why your logic has a hole in it.

Explain in your own words why it had to be written later.

One doesn't have to have a different date in mind to point out that your argument is not based on a reliable estimate of the contents. Your estimates may even be correct, but fi the path you use to get there is fallacious, it makes accuracy on your part more of a coincidence than a logical conclusion.

The point I have made on several occasions is that no one knows when the gospels were written, where they were written, and by whom they were written.

The traditional belief is that they were written in the order they appear in the New Testament: Matthew was written first by the Apostle St. Matthew; Mark is an abridgement of Matthew, written by John Mark, a traveling companion of St. Peter, Luke was written by St. Luke, a traveling companion of St. Paul. St. Luke used Matthew and Mark as sources, along with other sources. John was written later by the apostle St. John . That belief explains the similarities between the first three gospels, which are called the Synoptic Gospels.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The point I have made on several occasions is that no one knows when the gospels were written,

Which has nothing to do with the post you replied to... One can point out that you have displayed faulty logic or made unsupported conclusions without having to provide evidence such as you demanded, for a different conclusion.

 

[fta]

The point I have made on several occasions is that no one knows when the gospels were written, where they were written, and by whom they were written.

And yet Christian apologists are fond of saying that if the Gospels were submitted as evidence in a court of law, the judge would rule in their favor, etc.

The traditional belief is that they were written in the order they appear in the New Testament: Matthew was written first by the Apostle St. Matthew; Mark is an abridgement of Matthew, written by John Mark, a traveling companion of St. Peter, Luke was written by St. Luke, a traveling companion of St. Paul. St. Luke used Matthew and Mark as sources, along with other sources. John was written later by the apostle St. John . That belief explains the similarities between the first three gospels, which are called the Synoptic Gospels.

Unfortunately that "tradition" is of very little historical value. Wells again:

It was what the Toronto theologian F. W. Beare calls 'second-century guesses' that gave the gospels the names by which we now know them. They were, as he justly says, originally 'anonymous documents', of whose authors 'nothing is known'.

 

[Trodon]

The point I have made on several occasions is that no one knows when the gospels were written,

Which has nothing to do with the post you replied to... One can point out that you have displayed faulty logic or made unsupported conclusions without having to provide evidence such as you demanded, for a different conclusion.

I have made a reasonably thorough study of Biblical archeology and the higher criticism of the Bible. I have pointed out that little can be known with any degree of certainty. My conclusions, consequently, have been tentative.

Here is a website that has a good explanation of deductive logic and inductive logic. It also has a list of logical fallacies. Please explain how my logic has been faulty.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

 

[fta]

Here is a website that has a good explanation of deductive logic and inductive logic. It also has a list of logical fallacies. Please explain how my logic has been faulty.http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

You appear to accept that the Four Gospels/Acts were written by St. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John simply because of a late tradition dating back to Bishop Irenaeus (described in Davidson's Canon of the Bible as "credulous and blundering") around 180 CE. This is an appeal to belief or appeal to authority.

Your other logical fallacy was to argue:

1. The New Testament doesn't refer directly to the Roman siege of Jerusalem or the execution of Peter and Paul.
2. Therefore the New Testament must have been written before those events took place.

The alternative (and far more likely) explanation is that the New Testament was compiled long after those events, but the unknown authors deliberately avoided mentioning them because it did not suit their purpose.

 

[Trodon]

Here is a website that has a good explanation of deductive logic and inductive logic. It also has a list of logical fallacies. Please explain how my logic has been faulty.http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

You appear to accept that the Four Gospels/Acts were written by St. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John simply because of a late tradition dating back to Bishop Irenaeus (described in Davidson's Canon of the Bible as "credulous and blundering") around 180 CE. This is an appeal to belief or appeal to authority.

Your other logical fallacy was to argue:

1. The New Testament doesn't refer directly to the Roman siege of Jerusalem or the execution of Peter and Paul.
2. Therefore the New Testament must have been written before those events took place.

The alternative (and far more likely) explanation is that the New Testament was compiled long after those events, but the unknown authors deliberately avoided mentioning them because it did not suit their purpose.

On several occasions in this thread I have said that nothing is known with any assurance about who wrote the gospels, when they were written, where they were written, and why they were written.

There are Fundamentalist Bible scholars. These have advanced degrees from accredited universities in Biblical subjects. They can read ancient languages. They study the findings of Biblical archaeology. However, they believe that the Bible is literally true.

I agree with the consensus of non Fundamentalist Bible scholars for the most part. I believe that Mark was written first. I believe that Luke and Matthew were written using Mark and Q as sources. Q is a more primitive gospel similar to the Gospel of Thomas. I believe that John was written last. I believe that the author of John had read Luke, but did not have it with him as he wrote John.

Where I differ from the non Fundamentalist consensus is that I believe that Mark, Luke, and Acts probably, and Matthew and John possibly, were written before the Jewish Uprising that happened from 66 to 73 AD. I believe that Q and the Gospel of Thomas were eye witness accounts by two of the twelve apostles. I believe that Matthew and John included as sources accounts written by St. Matthew and St. John. Again, I acknowledge that none of this can be known with any degree of certainty.

It would have suited the purpose of the gospel writers to specifically mention the Jewish Uprising. They could have argued, as Christians subsequently did argue, that the crushing of the Uprising was God's punishment to the Jews for not recognizing their Messiah.

 

[fta]

It would have suited the purpose of the gospel writers to specifically mention the Jewish Uprising. They could have argued, as Christians subsequently did argue, that the crushing of the Uprising was God's punishment to the Jews for not recognizing their Messiah.

The Gospels do refer indirectly to the Roman siege of Jerusalem in 70CE. The Synoptics try to impress readers by claiming that Jesus supernaturally foretold the destruction of the Temple:

And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. (Matthew 24:1-2)

And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here! And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. (Mark 13:1-2)

And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said, As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down... And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. (Luke 21:5-20)

It's more likely that these "prophecies" were put into Jesus's mouth by the evangelists after the destruction of the Temple. The Old Testament book of Daniel is a similar case: it purports to have been written before the events it "foretells", but was actually written afterwards.

Matthew 27:25 also has the Jewish crowd who demand the execution of Jesus saying "Let his blood be on us and on our children!" This implies that the author of Matthew believed that the subsequent generation of Jews were indeed cursed and/or punished for rejecting Jesus.

 

[fta]

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention this passage, which is an obvious hint that the Roman siege of Jerusalem was God punishing the Jews for rejecting Jesus:

As [Jesus] approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, "If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace--but now it is hidden from your eyes. The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you." (Luke 19:41-44).

We can also see similar foreshadowing of Paul's execution in Acts 20:25-38; and Peter's execution in John 21:18-19. Some commentators think that the puzzling statement in Matthew 23:35 that the Jews will be punished for the recent murder in the Temple of a certain Zacharias is an anachronistic reference to an incident that took place shortly before the destruction of the Temple in 70CE.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You appear to accept that the Four Gospels/Acts were written by St. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John simply because of a late tradition dating back to Bishop Irenaeus (described in Davidson's Canon of the Bible as "credulous and blundering") around 180 CE. This is an appeal to belief or appeal to authority.

Your other logical fallacy was to argue:

1. The New Testament doesn't refer directly to the Roman siege of Jerusalem or the execution of Peter and Paul.
2. Therefore the New Testament must have been written before those events took place.

The alternative (and far more likely) explanation is that the New Testament was compiled long after those events, but the unknown authors deliberately avoided mentioning them because it did not suit their purpose.

On several occasions in this thread I have said that nothing is known with any assurance about who wrote the gospels, when they were written, where they were written, and why they were written.

There are Fundamentalist Bible scholars. These have advanced degrees from accredited universities in Biblical subjects. They can read ancient languages. They study the findings of Biblical archaeology. However, they believe that the Bible is literally true.

I agree with the consensus of non Fundamentalist Bible scholars for the most part. I believe that Mark was written first. I believe that Luke and Matthew were written using Mark and Q as sources. Q is a more primitive gospel similar to the Gospel of Thomas. I believe that John was written last. I believe that the author of John had read Luke, but did not have it with him as he wrote John.

Where I differ from the non Fundamentalist consensus is that I believe that Mark, Luke, and Acts probably, and Matthew and John possibly, were written before the Jewish Uprising that happened from 66 to 73 AD. I believe that Q and the Gospel of Thomas were eye witness accounts by two of the twelve apostles. I believe that Matthew and John included as sources accounts written by St. Matthew and St. John. Again, I acknowledge that none of this can be known with any degree of certainty.

It would have suited the purpose of the gospel writers to specifically mention the Jewish Uprising. They could have argued, as Christians subsequently did argue, that the crushing of the Uprising was God's punishment to the Jews for not recognizing their Messiah.

I think that if that were in fact the case, that the canonical gospels are pre 70CE, we would have something of a hint of that from Qumran or somewhere else. There was some pretty unbelievable stuff from Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls but nothing alluding to any Jesus stories.

It's been suggested that Jesus was an Essene and that he was influenced by Qumran and that perhaps JTB was Essene or Qumran material, but we have nothing definitive to support such speculation.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

On several occasions in this thread I have said that nothing is known with any assurance about who wrote the gospels, when they were written, where they were written, and why they were written.

There are Fundamentalist Bible scholars. These have advanced degrees from accredited universities in Biblical subjects. They can read ancient languages. They study the findings of Biblical archaeology. However, they believe that the Bible is literally true.

Yep. And they know the Ark is near Ararat. They've found it. They claim Noah had advanced engineering expertise and methods for his time, and that trees pre flood were twice as large as today, allowing Noah to build his boat out of single timbers. And they have no knowledge of pre-existing flood stories or an historical awareness of what was happening in 1st century Judea that does not fit their narratives.

 

[Sarpedon]

Oh really? What techniques did they think he had? Did Noah know about trusses? Laminated wood beams? Could they build the ark now using only the techniques they imagine Noah had?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Oh really? What techniques did they think he had? Did Noah know about trusses? Laminated wood beams? Could they build the ark now using only the techniques they imagine Noah had?

They don't know what those techniques were, only that Noah must have used them to build his boat so quickly and for it to be watertight and serviceable despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. It's the same escape hatch used to justify accepting lots of unsupportable religious claims.

It isn't really important whether the anonymous writers of the Jesus stories believed their tales anymore than Hemingway or Siegel or Joseph Smith believed their writings. What seems to be the point of discussion is whether the readers believe it and historicize it. And that's ultimately an ontological discussion. I can be a Pagan in the second century and never have heard of this Jesus guy. But within my own experiences he's really nothing new. I'll adopt him and ultimately defend his alleged history out of need and familiarity. I'll begin to own it because it's how I now identify myself. This dynamic can therefore operate even among people who have no such tendencies because they don't have a methodology for determining literary fiction from historical fact. That something as unbelievable as a Jesus tale can get historicized is not at all unusual.