S
steve53
Guest
The further away “scholars” can place the writing of the Gospels, the easier it is to undermine the Church- which is, I think, their objective.
- Status
H
highrigger1
Guest
JRKH,One thing that might account for the points brought up by abucs is the “Q” document.
For those who have not heard of this, it refers to a possible source document of sayings of Jesus (plus???) that influenced the synoptic Gospels. Thus it would have predated the Gospels but by how much…
Peace
James
I do not doubt the possiblity of the Q document or documents but they are theoretical. We have no direct knowledge of them. I agree they would have predated the gospels at least Matthew and Luke. Peace, JohnR
H
highrigger1
Guest
abucs,
I am also interested in that aspect and good historians will explain their reasons. I am generally quite impressed with their reasoning and I have seen nothing that clearly refutes their conclusions. Peace, JohnR
H
highrigger1
Guest
gorgias,
Good history is always a good point. And it is fair to ask if Pauls letters influenced the gosples. The Pauline position of the power of faith in Christ and repentance is clearly reflected in the gospels and the sayings of Jesus. No one is saying that the Gosples are corrupted. But I think it is also fair to conclude that the events and teachings in the Gospels were also reflections of the beliefs of the early church.
As for me I accept the teachings of the Gospels as they are presented but I realize that the beliefs and experiences of the early churches are also reflected there. How could they not be?
Peace, JohnR
J
JRKH
Guest
S
stevekehl
Guest
Sorry to disagree, but at least two Gospels, Luke and Mark, were written before 60 A.D. Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles and there is no mention of the murder of James, Jesus’ brother, in 62 A.D. This was recorded by Flavius Josephus, a non-Christian source, between the death of the Roman governor Festus and the arrival of the new governor, Albinus. The Sanhedrin seized James, the leader of Christians in Jerusalem, threw him off the Temple Mount and then stoned him. Surely Luke, who recorded the death of Stephen and James the son of Zebedee, would have mentioned the killing of Jesus brother, elder of Jerusalem, counselor of Paul (Acts15) and witness to the Resurrected Christ (First Corinthians 15), unless the book was done and sent off before it happened. If we give Luke two years to write Acts he started sometime around 59 A.D. Since the Gospel of Luke preceded Acts then the Gospel of Luke was finished before 59 A.D. Also, scholars agree that Mark was the first of the Gospels, so it must have been done before Luke began his Gospel, again two years to write, so 57 A.D. for Luke to start. In addition, Paul quotes the Gospel of Luke (10:7) in I Timothy 5:18 and calls it Scripture, so Luke’s Gospel had to have been widely circulated and accepted by the Apostles by the timeI Timothy was written (62-65 A.D.)
As for Matthew, it had to be written before the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. because of this verse where Jesus predicts the Temple’s destruction.
Matt. 24:2 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.
Surely Matthew would have mentioned the fulfillment of this prophecy if written after 70 A.D. Skeptics can’t deny the most of the New Testament was written within 40 years of Jesus death.
H
highrigger1
Guest
steve,
ALL serious historians disagree with your view. The authors of scripture were assigned later and no one is sure who really wrote them. The the temple destrution was known when the gospel was written. That is one of the reasons we can be sure it was written after 70AD.
You need to read a book on the bible that eplains these things.
Peace, JohnR
S
steve53
Guest
Well, HighRigger, let’s get down to brass tacks.
Pick a scholar and tell us what he bases his theory on.
Be specific. We can handle it.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Well… this could get interesting!
H
highrigger1
Guest
steve,
My favorite scholar is Raymond E. Brown (Catholic).
You may purchase his books cheap and used on amazon.com
Peace, JohnR
F
fred_conty
Guest
Stevekehl,
I think you have a good argument.
But their are other problems dating the books.
Sometimes we don’t know who the author really is. But in certain cases, the author used a psydo-name.
Or some names are very common and the name used in authorship of one book has the same as an author of another book, but the authors are different. I believe Peter’s epistle is like this. The last I read was that Peter was not the author of the letter of Peter, but it was someone else. How many more may be this? Or maybe later this will be shown not to be true.
None of this has an effect on the inspiration, but may have an impact on dating the book or dependency features.
In addition to all of this, it is difficult to keep up with the latest discoveries and other data that may alter our understanding. Reading books 5 or 10 years old may not be current enough today.
Here is a comment about the dates of the N.T. books, but how current is this?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_testiment#Dates_of_composition
The earliest works which came to be part of the New Testament are the letters of the Apostle Paul. The Gospel of Mark has been dated from as early as the AD 50s, although most scholars date it between the range of 65 and 72.[63] Many scholars believe that Matthew and Luke were written after the composition of Mark as they make use of Mark’s content. Therefore they are generally dated later than Mark, although how much later is debated. Matthew has been dated between 70 and 85. Luke has been placed within 80 to 95. However, a few scholars date the Gospel of Luke much earlier, as Luke indicates in the book of Acts that he has already written the Gospel of Luke prior to writing the introduction to Acts.
Just a few thoughts.
po18guy
Well-known member
Regardless of the dates of composition, not one single original document of sacred scripture exists. Zero. What we do have is a Church with the authority to test the numerous writings that were circulating and condense them into what we know as Sacred Scripture.
Who said that the date that something was written has anything to do with its importance? Read the prologue to Luke. Theophilus learned nothing - zip, zero, nada, from Luke’s Gospel. He already knew its contents and more, from the oral Apostolic tradition that he had already received - which Luke’s Gospel was intended only to confirm.
Who said that the date that something was written has anything to do with its importance? Read the prologue to Luke. Theophilus learned nothing - zip, zero, nada, from Luke’s Gospel. He already knew its contents and more, from the oral Apostolic tradition that he had already received - which Luke’s Gospel was intended only to confirm.
S
steve53
Guest
po18guy
Well-known member
Ah, the source of your vacillation. The bolded portion of your reply may safely be treated as the plague that it is. From the prayer to Saint Michael: “Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil” If those sites are not a snare which awaits us, what are they?
As to your original point, the primary and intended means of transmission of the Gospel was oral. This negates the importance of any dating upon the NT scriptures. The oral transmission is clear from Jesus’ own teaching, the very structure of His Church, as well as His commands to the Apostles at His ascension. He sent Apostles forth, rather than scripture. Remember that Jesus warned of false prophets and false teachers. He Himself had been tempted by the words of scripture in the wilderness, but did the devil have the authority to interpret the scripture? Absolutely not!
For that very reason, our Lord invested the Apostles with amazing and unprecedented powers before He sent them forth. They taught orally. Paul travelled extensively, and so had to communicate in the only manner possible: the letter. As to the scriptures that we possess, rest assured that Christ’s Church tested all extant writings and, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit as promised, winnowed them down to the 27 books that we possess today.
Atheism is a corrosive influence upon faith. Many at those atheist sites are former believers. They have gained nothing and have lost everything. One is well advised to abandon them to their self-imposed darkness. As it is with many situations in life, you cannot pull them up - they can only pull you down, thus the reason for this thread.
M
melekali
Guest
There are many outside the household of the faith who have dared to make this claim. Problem is, Christianity disagrees with this assertion. They are using the silly ‘logic’ that if Paul’s writings came first, then he was the initiator of Christianity.
Problem is, when one reads Acts 9 where Paul was struck down blind and Ananias laid hands upon him to restore his sight, right after that Paul was “baptized and took food and recovered his strength.” Paul became a follower of Jesus the same way everyone else did because the Apostles and the rest of the disciples followed Jesus imperative at the end of Matthew to baptize and teach.
So we see, Paul couldn’t have started something he was initiated into before he got his start in Christianity. All of a sudden their logic doesn’t seem so logical.
M
melekali
Guest
I would venture out with the following…no one really knows what happened specifically. Paul spent several years in the desert of Syria. I expect he did a study, but there is no indication that he had no contact with anyone, as if he were doing an Antony of the desert. After all, what about the reception of the sacraments? Eucharist was celebrated from the first stories in Acts. God does what he does the way he chooses. There was an ancient Church at Antioch which Peter pastored for some time before he found himself in Rome. Further, it is a fact that the first city to have an actual church was in Edessa, Turkey which started within a year of Jesus’ passion, death and resurrection. Tradition teaches us that St. Jude took a cloth with an image not made by hands to King Agbar V who had contracted leprosy and, according to the story, after 10 days in its presence the king was healed and permitted St. Jude to preach, converting a great part of the city’s populace. That is the reason the image from the Shroud is on a medal St. Jude is holding.
There’s no doubt that Paul was given special knowledge, being transported to the “seventh heaven,” whatever that means. There’s more theories than actual knowledge about those incidents.
M
melekali
Guest
One thing that amazes me is that the early document we do have. I have heard it said that from the early church fathers, one could assemble the new testament as it exists today.
A
annem
Guest
Dear John R, Strikes me you have been reading some very iffy scholars. RAYMOND BROWN??? Yes, yes, I know Father Groeschel knew him and loved him and no doubt as a person and as a priest he was wonderful. As scholars go, however, I would call him simply dreadful at best. (And I am trying to be charitable) (Really).
As far as y our claim that “ALL serious historians disagree with your view” I am astounded you could have penned those words with a straight face.
:Sorry, it’s just not true. And I am very very familiar with historians and biblical scholarship.
’
God b less, Annem
J
jeffrey_erwin
Guest
Dave, Thanks for your question and the above clarification. In ancient times an official document from a king would carry the king’s seal to prove its authenticty. The Jewish Messiah, Yehoshua ben Yosef, gave mankind teachings as recorded in His Gospels. In his tortuous death He showed us how to follow His teaching and, at the same time, He created what I would call the “Seal of the Gospels,” His stamp of authenticity. This
seal is none other than the Shroud of Turin which contains our Teacher’s blood and His miraculous image. In my humble opinion, the Shroud is the “Sign of Jonah,” the “only sign” which is given for an entire generation (a multitude) as mentioned in all four Gospels. Several excellent websites are devoted to the science of the Shroud. I would recommend Its study.
A
annem
Guest
Origen and Jerome both claimed to have in their possessions the earlier Matthew, written in Aramaic or Hebrew. Is this what you mean?
God bless, Annem
- Status