D
dustdev14
Guest
I’ve heard that the Gospels were written 100 years after Christ was born, and I think the Gospel of John May have even been 150 years, so frankly how do we know that these accounts are REALLY what happened?
- Status
W
Wesrock
Guest
These estimates are rather late. Most secular scholarship puts Mark, Luke, and John before 100 AD, maybe 60s through 80s, while John is usually placed between 90 to 120 AD. (And they may have been earlier).
Still, that is a few decades away from 33 AD. The gospels are “synopses” of the traditions about Jesus life and the good news the apostles bore witness to, the same Jesus thay Paul was writing about in the 50s.
We hold the gospels to be authoritative because the Church advises they are so, and we believe in the Church because we trust that what was going on in those first fee centuries are proof of its claims and authority.
Now, the gospels are part of the evidence used to support the church, but it’s not strictly circular logic. We don’t start by assuming that the gospels are scripture. We simply take them for what they are: first century writings purporting to witness something. We combine that with other first century writings we have and information received from that time, see that something was going on, and come to conclusions about whether the church is true or not. It’s only after that that we then trust the church that these (the gospels and epistles) are more than just forst century documents, but also scripture.
This was very hastily written. I apologize. I have to run now.
D
Dan_Defender
Guest
There is a small piece of papyrus held at Magdalen College, Oxford, which is the oldest fragment of St. Matthew’s Gospel in existence today. The fragment contains disjointed segments of Matt. 26, but even
more important than the writing style, which p(name removed by moderator)oints to the time of Jesus’ life, is the use of KS, an abbreviated form of Kyrios, to refer to Jesus as Lord God- meaning that the ancient author believed that Jesus is divine.
It is certainly possible that all of the Gospels were written before 70 AD.
more important than the writing style, which p(name removed by moderator)oints to the time of Jesus’ life, is the use of KS, an abbreviated form of Kyrios, to refer to Jesus as Lord God- meaning that the ancient author believed that Jesus is divine.
It is certainly possible that all of the Gospels were written before 70 AD.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
We eventually have to decide who we will believe. After much study, searching and prayer, I have chosen to believe the Catholic Church. If I believe the Church, I believe what She teaches including the Canon of Sacred Scripture.
You simply need to decide where you will place your trust.
You simply need to decide where you will place your trust.
M
MiserereMei
Guest
According to my copy of the New Oxford Annotated Bible, which is a standard academic study Bible (something doesn’t get put in it unless it has significant backing), Matthew was written probably around 80, Mark prior to 66, 85 (give or take 5 to 10 years either way) for Luke, and around 90 for John. I have had one professor argue quite convincingly for a much earlier date for John, and another for Matthew.
What is also important is the number of independent witnesses. If you take each of the Gospels to be written by the man for whom they are named (a tradition which arose later, but which also has little to no evidence backing it up), the Gospels present four independent witnesses. Again, this is unlikely.
Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called the Synoptics, as they are closely related and are probably interdependent, apart from John. That means, with the standard scholarly position, there are two idependent witnesses to the life, teachings, and death of Jesus. Paul presents a third (he was likely present for some of Jesus’ preaching and his death, due to where Paul was known to be at the time of these events). The more independent witnesses to an event, the better attested it is.
I would reccomend N.T. Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God, which details the arguments for the reliability of the Resurrection narrative, many of which apply to the whole of the Gospel narratives. It is a wholly masterful cinder block of a book.
Also, keep in mind that the Gospels are ancient works; the ancient peoples wrote history and biography different from us today, with different goals and preoccupations. It is a mistake to assume the Gospels are written in the same way a journalist would write today, for example. In fact, the Gospels (especially John and Matthew) have much the character of extended sermons, written for an explicit theological point.
Unfortunately, arguing that the Gospels are accurate because the Church declares them to be so, and we believe the Church because of events in the first century is circular reasoning. Fortunately, however, we have enough data to support the reliability of at least the basic plotline of the Gospels, if not the total factuality of each word.
The most important event of them all is the Resurrection of Jesus. After all, Paul says, “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied” (1 Cor. 12:17-19 RSV). We have more than enough evidence for this particular event. Again, see the book mentioned above.
What is also important is the number of independent witnesses. If you take each of the Gospels to be written by the man for whom they are named (a tradition which arose later, but which also has little to no evidence backing it up), the Gospels present four independent witnesses. Again, this is unlikely.
Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called the Synoptics, as they are closely related and are probably interdependent, apart from John. That means, with the standard scholarly position, there are two idependent witnesses to the life, teachings, and death of Jesus. Paul presents a third (he was likely present for some of Jesus’ preaching and his death, due to where Paul was known to be at the time of these events). The more independent witnesses to an event, the better attested it is.
I would reccomend N.T. Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God, which details the arguments for the reliability of the Resurrection narrative, many of which apply to the whole of the Gospel narratives. It is a wholly masterful cinder block of a book.
Also, keep in mind that the Gospels are ancient works; the ancient peoples wrote history and biography different from us today, with different goals and preoccupations. It is a mistake to assume the Gospels are written in the same way a journalist would write today, for example. In fact, the Gospels (especially John and Matthew) have much the character of extended sermons, written for an explicit theological point.
Unfortunately, arguing that the Gospels are accurate because the Church declares them to be so, and we believe the Church because of events in the first century is circular reasoning. Fortunately, however, we have enough data to support the reliability of at least the basic plotline of the Gospels, if not the total factuality of each word.
The most important event of them all is the Resurrection of Jesus. After all, Paul says, “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied” (1 Cor. 12:17-19 RSV). We have more than enough evidence for this particular event. Again, see the book mentioned above.
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
I will add to this wesrock.
The Letters Of Paul were written first in the 50 s AD. They were written to keep his growing infant Christian communities on track. So for the time between the death and resurrection of Christ, and these letters, the early Christian world was sharing oral discourse over what had happened. The non Christian Jewish and pagan world also was.
Mark wrote in the 60s. Luke and Matthew wrote a decade or two later, and both these men referred to oral tradition and memory, Mark , and a Q source , as well as independent writing for their respective audiences. We know Luke associated with Paul too.
John wrote late in AD 1 and in a climate of exile post Jerusalem destruction.
We also have many individual gospel books, copied and distributed in the first few centuries, and found in Egypt. This demonstrates the extent of the oral and written shared traditions of the early persecuted church. We must also remember believers were martyred for their belief and faith in this early pagan dominated world. Pliny, and many Roman officials wrote of the faith and belief and stubbornness and seemingly non existent harm Christianity practiced in its faith. Their big beef was refusal of Christians to participate in pagan festivals thought essential for the good of the community.
The Letters Of Paul were written first in the 50 s AD. They were written to keep his growing infant Christian communities on track. So for the time between the death and resurrection of Christ, and these letters, the early Christian world was sharing oral discourse over what had happened. The non Christian Jewish and pagan world also was.
Mark wrote in the 60s. Luke and Matthew wrote a decade or two later, and both these men referred to oral tradition and memory, Mark , and a Q source , as well as independent writing for their respective audiences. We know Luke associated with Paul too.
John wrote late in AD 1 and in a climate of exile post Jerusalem destruction.
We also have many individual gospel books, copied and distributed in the first few centuries, and found in Egypt. This demonstrates the extent of the oral and written shared traditions of the early persecuted church. We must also remember believers were martyred for their belief and faith in this early pagan dominated world. Pliny, and many Roman officials wrote of the faith and belief and stubbornness and seemingly non existent harm Christianity practiced in its faith. Their big beef was refusal of Christians to participate in pagan festivals thought essential for the good of the community.
Last edited:
O
otrrl
Guest
How do we know…? The gospels have had intense scrutiny for centuries, since the beginning, Add to that “higher criticism [analysis]” into the genre, style of writing, comparison of the gospels, historical analysis, etc,
The church’s hermeneutic (sp?) is one of faith and not skepticism. The gospel came from the Church, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I believe the Bible because it makes so much sense, when it is studied properly, within the Sacred Tradition, as recommended by the Magisterium of the Church, and using the “analogy of faith.”
The church’s hermeneutic (sp?) is one of faith and not skepticism. The gospel came from the Church, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I believe the Bible because it makes so much sense, when it is studied properly, within the Sacred Tradition, as recommended by the Magisterium of the Church, and using the “analogy of faith.”
R
Roguish
Guest
We don’t. It’s hard to prove what exactly happened yesterday in your own back-yard, even if someone was taking notes. Knowing with absolute certainty and down to the detail what happened 2,000 years ago in Galilee and Judea is impossible.
But you see, it doesn’t matter. Religion properly starts with (and from) Faith, which is first and foremost your own trust in God. When your Faith is firm you can meaningfully read the Gospel or any other scripture, and meaningfully comment on it and investigate it. But turning scripture research into a quest for definitive facts is futile because (a) you’ll never succeed and (b) it won’t do anything for your Faith.
Last edited:
D
deMontfort
Guest
Another hit-and-run thread start 
M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
It all comes down to faith. There is good reason to believe they are true, but nothing definitive. One arrives at faith in the gospels after establishing faith in God, Jesus Christ and the church.
Last edited:
- Status