When were the Gospels written? And by whom?

[Q_Bee]

I wouldn’t expect Peter, James, and John all to have the same hallucination on the mountaintop, no. I would think that maybe that story was a bit of a - well, story, similar to Mohammed’s story of splitting the moon in half.

The story wasn’t signed off as true by the three named witnesses. It was simply reported to be so by the author.

The only gospel that appears to have eye witness material in it is John. (The Pool of Bethesda was located based on its description.)

Who checked these facts? How did they do it? How do we know that we can trust their word?

Yes, lets trust those fellows, especially when Eusebius quotes Hegesippus, ‘who flourished closest to the days of the Apostles’ (c.90-180 CE), specifically where in his Fifth Book of Commentaries he quotes:

“But James, the brother of the Lord, who as there were many of this name, was surnamed the Just by all from the days of our Lord until now, received the Government of the Church with [or *from] the Apostles.”

I think what it essentially comes down to is the testimony of those few who wrote letters, gospels, etc. You view their testimony as trustworthy, but I do not. Testimony on its own is not really conclusive - we have all sorts of testimony on all sorts of issues (UFO technology possessed by the U.S. government, cult followers claiming that their leader works miracles, alien abductions, etc.).

We must not forget to mention the redactors who added a bit of “flavor” to the accounts they decided were “the right ones”.

 

[joe370]

**Hi guys, I hope this is the right section for my question. I was speaking with someone at my university the other day who made quite a few claims that threw me a little. Basically he said that the Gospels were not written until at least 40-100 years after Jesus, and that they were definitley NOT written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.
**
He is absolutely correct! The Apostles, and their disciples, normal vehicle by which they taught was oral, not written.

Jesus said, 'And as you go, preach, saying, The Kingdom of heaven is at hand…

*He said to them, "Go into all the world, and preach the Good News to the whole creation.

Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.*

*And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach…
*

What I tell you in darkness, that speak you in light: and what you hear in the ear, that preach you on the housetops…

*Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia
*

When he had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go out to Macedonia, concluding that the Lord had called us to preach the Good News to them.

…and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

*…but I proceeded to preach first to the people in Damascus, and then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judaea, and to the Gentiles, that they must repent and turn to God, and live lives consistent with such repentance. *

So, as much as is in me, I am eager to preach the Good News to you also who are in Rome.

And how will they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the Good News of peace, who bring glad tidings of good things!

For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Good News…

but we preach Christ crucified; a stumbling block to Jews, and foolishness to Greeks…

*For if I preach the Good News, I have nothing to boast about; for necessity is laid on me; but woe is to me, if I don’t preach the Good News. *

…preach the word; be urgent in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with all patience and teaching.

Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

The protestant man-made doctrine of sola scriptura via private interpretation would have been foreign to the 1st century Apostolic Church!

Furthermore, he said that in early Christianity there were numerous other Gospels (the so-called Gnostic gospels) that were not included in the Bible and hidden by the Church because they showed that Jesus was just an ordinary man, a prophet and nothing else.

Again, he is absolutely correct! If not for the C.C., and no other, we ALL might have been seduced by this blasphemous teaching.

He then started bringing up all the Da Vinci Code nonsense, but also claimed that things such as the Resurection, Trinity, Christmas etc were just incorporated from older religions and added to Christianity.

Total bunk! The Da Vinci Code is a novel and therefore a work of fiction, as Dan Brown clearly admits.

It is from the Old Testament writings, not pagan cults, that the New Testament themes were developed:

The following demonstrates some of the New Testament themes found in the Old Testament.

Ascension of Jesus to the right hand of God Ps. 110:1 Matt 26:64; Acts 7:55-60; Eph. 1:20

Atonement by blood Lev. 17:11 Heb. 9:22
Begotten Son, Jesus is Psalm 2:7 Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5

Crucifixion Psalm 22:11-18; Zech. 12:10 Luke 23:33-38

Eternal Son Micah 5:1-2; Psalm 2:7 Heb. 1:5; 5:5
God among His people Isaiah 9:6; 40:3 John 1:1,14; 20:28; Col. 2:9; Matt. 3:3
Incarnation of God 1)Ex 3:14; 2)Ps. 45:6 Isaiah 9:6;

Zech. 12:10 1)John 8:58; 1:1,14; 2)Heb. 1:8; Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:1-3
Only Begotten Son Gen. 22:2. See Typology John 3:16; Heb. 11:7

Resurrection of Christ Psalm 16:9-10; 49:15; Is. 26:19 John 2:19-21

Return of Christ Zech. 14:1-5; Mic. 1:3-4 Matt. 16:27-28; Acts 1:11; 3:20

Sin offering Ex. 30:10; Lev. 4:3 Rom. 8:3; Heb. 10:18; 13:11
Son of God Psalm 2:7 John 5:18

Substitutionary Atonement Isaiah 53:6-12; Lev. 6:4-10,21 Matt. 20:28; 1 Pet. 2:24; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 3:18;

Virgin Birth Isaiah 7:14 Matt. 1:25…

 

[joe370]

…There is no need for any of the Christian writers to borrow from anything other than the Old Testament source in order to establish any Christian doctrine concerning Jesus. If the argument that pagan mythologies predated Christian teachings and therefore Christianity borrowed from them is true, then it must also be truth that the pagan religions borrowed from the Jewish religion because it is older than they are! Given that all of the Christian themes are found in the Old Testament and the Old Testament was begun around 2000 B.C. and completed around 400 B.C., we can then conclude that these pagan religions actually borrowed from Jewish ideas found in the Old Testament.

Furthermore, those who wrote about Jesus in the New Testament were Jews (or under the instruction of Jews) who were devoted to the legitimacy and inspiration of the Old Testament scriptures and possessed a strong disdain for pagan religions. It would have been blasphemous for them to incorporate pagan sources into what they saw as the fulfillment of the sacred Old Testament scriptures, concerning the Messiah. Also, since they were writing about Jesus, they were writing based upon what He taught: truth, love, honesty, integrity, etc. Why then would they lie and make up stories and suffer great persecution, hardships, ridicule, arrest, beatings, and death all for known lies and fabrications from paganism? It doesn’t make sense.

At best, Mithraism only had some common themes with Christianity (and Judaism) which were recorded in both the Old and New Testaments. What is far more probable is that as Mithraism developed, it started to adopt Christian concepts.

Therefore, even though there are similarities between Christianity and Mithraism, it is up to the exponent of this theory to prove which one did the borrowing! Considering that the writers of the New Testament were Jews who shunned pagan philosophies and that the Old Testament has all of the themes found in Christianity, it is far more probable that if any borrowing was done, it was done by the pagan religions that wanted to emulate the success of Christianity.

 

[Q_Bee]

…There is no need for any of the Christian writers to borrow from anything other than the Old Testament source in order to establish any Christian doctrine concerning Jesus. If the argument that pagan mythologies predated Christian teachings and therefore Christianity borrowed from them is true, then it must also be truth that the pagan religions borrowed from the Jewish religion because it is older than they are! Given that all of the Christian themes are found in the Old Testament and the Old Testament was begun around 2000 B.C. and completed around 400 B.C., we can then conclude that these pagan religions actually borrowed from Jewish ideas found in the Old Testament.

Furthermore, those who wrote about Jesus in the New Testament were Jews (or under the instruction of Jews) who were devoted to the legitimacy and inspiration of the Old Testament scriptures and possessed a strong disdain for pagan religions. It would have been blasphemous for them to incorporate pagan sources into what they saw as the fulfillment of the sacred Old Testament scriptures, concerning the Messiah. Also, since they were writing about Jesus, they were writing based upon what He taught: truth, love, honesty, integrity, etc. Why then would they lie and make up stories and suffer great persecution, hardships, ridicule, arrest, beatings, and death all for known lies and fabrications from paganism? It doesn’t make sense.

At best, Mithraism only had some common themes with Christianity (and Judaism) which were recorded in both the Old and New Testaments. What is far more probable is that as Mithraism developed, it started to adopt Christian concepts.

Therefore, even though there are similarities between Christianity and Mithraism, it is up to the exponent of this theory to prove which one did the borrowing! Considering that the writers of the New Testament were Jews who shunned pagan philosophies and that the Old Testament has all of the themes found in Christianity, it is far more probable that if any borrowing was done, it was done by the pagan religions that wanted to emulate the success of Christianity.

The above post makes its stance based on the Christian mythology that the authors of the four gospels were all direct disciples of Jesus. It goes downhill from there, since at the very least, Mark and Luke were Creek speaking Christians and Luke demonstrably has little working knowledge of 1st century Palestine.

Beyond that, it would take a minimum of 15 pages to address all of the unfounded assuptions stung together as to pretend to have a working knowledge of the material at hand.

 

[jean8]

QBee, you’ve given me a lot to think about for the day (and in a good sense). Personally, I’m a bit of a Matthean prioritist leaning toward the Griesbach hypothesis (Matthew wrote first, then Luke borrowed from Matthew while Mark borrowed from both Matthew and Luke), but I’m also open to the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis (Mark wrote first, Matthew borrowed from Mark while Luke used both Matthew and Mark). In both cases the hypothetical Q Document is rendered unnecessary. Can you make a strong case for the Two-Source hypothesis and the Q Document?

Mark Goodacre, in his The Case Against Q, has released his ten reasons to question the existence of this particular document:

1. No-one has ever seen Q
2. No-one had ever heard of Q
3. Narrative Sequence in Q (this is problematic for the assertion postulated by some that Q is a “sayings Gospel” parallel to the Gospel of Thomas)
4. Occam’s Razor (i.e. Entities should not be multiplied beyond what is necessary)
5. Major Agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark
6. Minor Agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark
7. Minor Agreements in the Passion Narrative between Matthew and Luke
8. The Phenomenon of Fatigue
9. The Legacy of Scissors-and-Paste Scholarship (Goodacre claims that Q is a relic of an age wherein scholars solved every problem by postulating another written source, citing Burnett Hillman Streeter’s Four document hypothesis, wherein there were at least four sources to the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke: the Gospel of Mark, and Q, M, and L)
10. Recognising Luke’s Literary Ability (Luke may have imaginatively and creatively re-ordered material from Matthew, instead of him conservatively following Q)

Basically the Q document is another gospel of nonsense.
religioustolerance.org/statbelief.htm
go get your Bible, the word of God.

God bless,
jean8

 

[Belloc_Fan]

The above post makes its stance based on the Christian mythology that the authors of the four gospels were all direct disciples of Jesus. It goes downhill from there, since at the very least, Mark and Luke were Creek speaking Christians and Luke demonstrably has little working knowledge of 1st century Palestine.

Beyond that, it would take a minimum of 15 pages to address all of the unfounded assuptions stung together as to pretend to have a working knowledge of the material at hand.

That was uncharitable. It’s one thing to disagree, but let’s be Christian about it.

Why do you think that Luke “demonstrably” has little working knowledge of 1st Century Palestine? When and where do you think his Gospel was written?

The idea that a Gospel was written in Greek doesn’t disturb any of what he’s saying – a large number of Jews at that time in that era spoke Greek, because it was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire. Besides that, Mark’s Gospel was originally in Hebrew or Aramaic, and was transliterated into Greek, which is why he has such strange syntax.

The major argument used for Mark’s Gospel having been written in Greek is that it uses (a majority of the time) the LXX, not the Hebrew version of the OT. But that’s because that’s what Jesus was quoting from. (Incidentally, this is one of the strongest affirmations of the Catholic Deuterocanon).

But even if it uses the LXX translation or word choice, that doesn’t mean it was originally written in Greek. In fact, the much stronger argument is that it was translated into Greek early on, and was originally Hebrew. Besides the syntax being Hebrew and not Greek, suggesting a transliteration, the prayer of Zechariah in Luke 1:67-79 has word-plays on the names of Zechariah, Elizabeth, and John in Hebrew, but they’re notably absent in the Greek. If Mark was a Greek-only speaker, how do you explain that?

Sorry if I take a harsh tack here, but I get annoyed when people who’ve taken a couple of secular Biblical History classes come in here and act arrogant towards everyone who takes the Bible at its word, because frankly, I think the arguments are weak for supporting the secular view. And I think hiding behind conclusory statements like “demonstrably” in lieu of showing evidence is poor logic, and I think you were being kind of a snob and a bully to a well-meaning poster.

 

[joe370]

This is perhaps the central problem I have with Christianity. How do you know that these books are accurate? How can you accept somebody’s word for it on such a momentous issue?

Hey Shredderbeam…

If in fact, you view life atheistically, then there really is no way to prove to you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the bible is accurate, or that Jesus Christ is God and defeated death --just as, there is no way for you to prove to me that God doesn’t exist, that the bible isn’t accurate, that Jesus isn’t God; Faith drives our beliefs, not fact!

Jesus said:
*“You have seen Me and believe? Blessed are those who have not seen Me yet believe.”
*
Seeing is not necessarily believing. When Thomas finally saw Jesus in the flesh, the veil of faith to believe or not to believe, was removed, and all lingering doubt relinquished; believing was no longer an issue! Seeing requires no faith. “ When I look up at the sky at night and see the moon and the myriad stars, I don’t need to believe that I am seeing the moon and the stars, for it is an empirical fact; This requires no faith! However, I do need to believe that nothing created the moon and the myriad stars, and this requires immense faith. This supposition defies logic! The counter argument by a friend of mine who is a devout atheist (he has tremendous faith, as I do in God, that God is not real; BTW, I’m not saying that of you!) – is, who or what created God? This is nothing more than a red-hearing. Even if I can’t answer his question, he still can’t answer mine. Perhaps, once man/women kind can grasp the infinite universe --the question, who or what created God would in fact, be fair game.

The ultimate question is --does it require more faith to believe in God, or more faith not to believe in God --ontologically speaking?

I have, what might at first blush, seem like a silly question, but I have my reasons. Do you think a human being, by natural cause, could voluminously exude 100% pure olive oil?

Lets see what science has to say about the existence of God…
youtube.com/watch?v=EN2oc7l1mPU

 

[Eucharisted]

Hi guys, I hope this is the right section for my question. I was speaking with someone at my university the other day who made quite a few claims that threw me a little. Basically he said that the Gospels were not written until at least 40-100 years after Jesus, and that they were definitley NOT written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. Furthermore, he said that in early Christianity there were numerous other Gospels (the so-called Gnostic gospels) that were not included in the Bible and hidden by the Church because they showed that Jesus was just an ordinary man, a prophet and nothing else. He then started bringing up all the Da Vinci Code nonsense, but also claimed that things such as the Resurection, Trinity, Christmas etc were just incorporated from older religions and added to Christianity.

To be honest Ive heard stuff like that before but not so much about the Gospels and their authors, and I didnt really know what to say. Anyone got any explanations or information on this as my knowledge in this area is a bit sketchy! Thanks!

God Bless.

According to Church historian and early Father Sulpitius Severus, the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles were already written, and, apparently, well known long before he was born circa 363 AD. This he says in his work “Sacred History”, Book II, chapter 27:

But we do not venture to touch on these things which are contained in the Gospels, and subsequently in the Acts of the Apostles, lest the character of our condensed work should, in any measure, detract from the dignity of the events;

Church historian and Father Eusebius of Caesarea, who was born circa 265 AD, notes that Saint Mark had written his Gospel very early in the Church, and he makes mention of the Epistle to Rome, when he says in “Church History”, Book II, chapter 15:

1. And thus when the divine word had made its home among them, the power of Simon was quenched and immediately destroyed, together with the man himself. And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of Peter’s hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of Mark.

1. And they say that Peter — when he had learned, through a revelation of the Spirit, of that which had been done — was pleased with the zeal of the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his authority for the purpose of being used in the churches. Clement in the eighth book of his Hypotyposes gives this account, and with him agrees the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias. And Peter makes mention of Mark in his first epistle which they say that he wrote in Rome itself, as is indicated by him, when he calls the city, by a figure, Babylon, as he does in the following words: The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, salutes you; and so does Marcus my son.

It is to be noted that Church Father writings are usually considered religiously biased sources of information on the history of the Church by those who do not accept the historicity of the gospels, though why this is I don’t know.

 

[RobbyS]

According to Church historian and early Father Sulpitius Severus, the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles were already written, and, apparently, well known long before he was born circa 363 AD. This he says in his work “Sacred History”, Book II, chapter 27:

Church historian and Father Eusebius of Caesarea, who was born circa 265 AD, notes that Saint Mark had written his Gospel very early in the Church, and he makes mention of the Epistle to Rome, when he says in “Church History”, Book II, chapter 15:

It is to be noted that Church Father writings are usually considered religiously biased sources of information on the history of the Church by those who do not accept the historicity of the gospels, though why this is I don’t know.

They have a need to discredit the testimony of the Fathers because it goes against their preferred narrative.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

The above post makes its stance based on the Christian mythology that the authors of the four gospels were all direct disciples of Jesus. It goes downhill from there, since at the very least, Mark and Luke were Creek speaking Christians and Luke demonstrably has little working knowledge of 1st century Palestine.

Beyond that, it would take a minimum of 15 pages to address all of the unfounded assuptions stung together as to pretend to have a working knowledge of the material at hand.

Hopefully this won’t take you 15 pages…
(1) How does Luke have “demonstrably” little working knowledge of 1st-Century Palestine?
(2) How do you know that Mark and Luke were Creek/Greek speakers?
(3) Even if they wrote in Greek, what difference would that make? Greek was the lingua franca; it’s like saying that since x Medieval author wrote in Latin, he must not have spoken the local vernacular.

I think I can present much stronger evidence of Hebrew origin, in any case.

For Mark, the strongest evidence is his syntax. Based on the word order and structure of sentences (verbs beginning sentences, etc.), this Gospel seems to have been written in Hebrew or Aramaic, and then translated word-by-word and phrase-by-phrase into Greek with relatively little regard for how the sentence would read. Basically, it was transliterated rather than translated. However, the oldest existant copies of Mark’s Gospel are in Greek, meaning either that: (1) the transliteration happened very early; (2) Mark’s Gospel is even older than we suspected; and/or (3) Mark was a Hebrew speaker trying to write in an unfamiliar Greek.

For Luke, the strongest evidence is word plays. For example:

• the “le’ar’a” and “lere’a” word-play in Luke 14:34-35
• Parthutheh - “crumbs”; Pathureh - “(his) table” in Luke 16:21
• my personal favourite, Luke 1:67-79, Zechariah’s song. In the Hebrew/Aramaic it has word plays on Zechariah’s name, as well as the names of Elizabeth and John (his wife and son).

In the Greek (as well as the English), they’re not there. For the specific usages of each name, they talk about it here: books.google.com/books?id=zWNe6CwgPKwC&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq, and for a list of reasons why it makes more sense that this was originally in Hebrew, check out books.google.com/books?id=zWNe6CwgPKwC&pg=PA61&lpg=

As an aside, I felt that you were very uncharitable to the poster you were responding to. It’s ok to disagree, but let’s be Christian about it. I hope in saying this I’m not going too far or offending you needlessly, but I find a pattern of people who’ve taken a few Greek and Hebrew classes or Biblical History classes acting like those of us who believe the Bible is what it says it is are naive and anti-intellectual idiots. It’s insulting, and it’s unpersuasive.

 

[joe370]

When were the Gospels written? And by whom?

Actually the answer is quite simple. Jesus hand picked individuals to administer His Church in His stead. They were to do as Jesus did when He walked the earth, and that was to preach and teach what they received from Jesus, on Pentecost. They in turn proceeded to do the same with their new hand-picked members of Jesus’ Apostolic Church, and eventually, they too would be in a position to hand-pick individuals to preach and teach, what was handed down to them, in their stead. This was to be done in perpetuity, thanks to the guidance and teaching of the Holy Spirit who was promised by Jesus to be with Jesus’ Apostolic Church “forever.”

The questions, “When were the Gospels written? And by whom?” are really irrelevant; Jesus built a Church and said nothing would ever vanquish His Church, and that the H.S. would be guarding, guiding and teaching His One Church in perpetuity; Jesus also said the Church is His Mystical Body; He said He is the Head of said Mystical Body; He said He is the Savior of said Mystical Body; If Jesus is the Savior of said Body, then it will be around until His return. If Jesus’ Apostolic Church (the codifier/canonizer of Sacred Scripture) --can be trusted vis-a-vis ALL doctrines, including those found in the bible, then the questions, “When were the Gospels written? And by whom?” --matter naught.

The point is, if Jesus’ Apostolic Church which cannot fail regarding Jesus’ teachings --collected, selected, compiled and codified the bible, and again, she can’t fail, regarding the correct inclusion/exclusion of books in Sacred Scripture, then it is safe to assume that we have in our possession, the True Gospel, irrespective of when they were finally written, and by whom!

Jesus will forever protect His Body, the Church, regardless of the chaff mixed in with the wheat, and His Church will forever protect, and further define His teachings in perpetuity, when faced with heretical viewpoints, e.g. Marcion’s heresy vis-a-vis the Trinity, or the Semipelagianism/Pelagianism heresies vis-a-vis the Immaculate Conception --The dogma of the Immaculate Conception was defined and promulgated,as a solid reaction against all forms of Semipelagianism and Pelagianism, which minimized the role of grace and sin.

 

[Q_Bee]

Hopefully this won’t take you 15 pages…
How do you know that Mark and Luke were Creek/Greek speakers?

I see that you are focused on a typo.

Even if they wrote in Greek, what difference would that make? Greek was the lingua franca; it’s like saying that since x Medieval author wrote in Latin, he must not have spoken the local vernacular.

Based upon the stance that these gospel authors were the fishermen disciples, it would be hard to make your claim from an RC pov. One could also make the point that the Nicodemus dialog in John 3 is based on a play on words as to the two potential meanings of the Greek word anothen. Perhaps the point here is to present a basic premise Jesus may have discussed by smithing a memorable dialog playing upon the Greek word as it was being presented to a Greek speaking people.

For Mark, the strongest evidence is his syntax. Based on the word order and structure of sentences (verbs beginning sentences, etc.), this Gospel seems to have been written in Hebrew or Aramaic, and then translated word-by-word and phrase-by-phrase into Greek with relatively little regard for how the sentence would read. Basically, it was transliterated rather than translated. However, the oldest existant copies of Mark’s Gospel are in Greek, meaning either that: (1) the transliteration happened very early; (2) Mark’s Gospel is even older than we suspected; and/or (3) Mark was a Hebrew speaker trying to write in an unfamiliar Greek.

One thing you’ve failed to consider is that the scribe may not have had the skill to transliterate into a more fluid Greek. However, this is not the stance of the RCC, which denies an earlier Hebrew/Aramaic source.

Which is it - a transliterated source, a Hebrew who is writing with limited fluidity in Greek, or a bilingual disciple?

For Luke, the strongest evidence is word plays. For example:

• the “le’ar’a” and “lere’a” word-play in Luke 14:34-35
• Parthutheh - “crumbs”; Pathureh - “(his) table” in Luke 16:21
• my personal favourite, Luke 1:67-79, Zechariah’s song. In the Hebrew/Aramaic it has word plays on Zechariah’s name, as well as the names of Elizabeth and John (his wife and son).

In the Greek (as well as the English), they’re not there. For the specific usages of each name, they talk about it here: books.google.com/books?id=zWNe6CwgPKwC&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq, and for a list of reasons why it makes more sense that this was originally in Hebrew, check out books.google.com/books?id=zWNe6CwgPKwC&pg=PA61&lpg=

Thanks for the links. I’ll peruse them when time allows.

As an aside, I felt that you were very uncharitable to the poster you were responding to. It’s ok to disagree, but let’s be Christian about it. I hope in saying this I’m not going too far or offending you needlessly, but I find a pattern of people who’ve taken a few Greek and Hebrew classes or Biblical History classes acting like those of us who believe the Bible is what it says it is are naive and anti-intellectual idiots. It’s insulting, and it’s unpersuasive.

Other than judging, ‘talking down’ in this aside, and finding excuses to feign insult… back on topic, one need not even take classes in Greek or Hebrew to use search engines to discover the original words of the text and their potential meanings. It soon becomes evident that there are wordplays and transliterations.

 

[driscll_books]

One has to search the writings of the Church Fathers for support as to Mark being the writer of his Gospel. John and Luke clearly are written by those two people, simply from the internal evidence. I’m not too sure about Matthew but again the early Church Fathers will give the answer.

 

[Q_Bee]

One has to search the writings of the Church Fathers for support as to Mark being the writer of his Gospel. John and Luke clearly are written by those two people, simply from the internal evidence. I’m not too sure about Matthew but again the early Church Fathers will give the answer.

If the church fathers said it, then it must be so? Then James, not Peter, received the leadership of the church as Eusebius said. Do you agree?

 

[Q_Bee]

One has to search the writings of the Church Fathers for support as to Mark being the writer of his Gospel. John and Luke clearly are written by those two people, simply from the internal evidence. I’m not too sure about Matthew but again the early Church Fathers will give the answer.

Do you see any possibility that the 4th gospel was written by the Johannine community over time? What do you make of the seams in the text or the problems that appear when the Beloved Disciple and Peter are in the same passages?

 

[Belloc_Fan]

I see that you are focused on a typo.

I don’t understand your incredible hostility … I was hardly “focused” on the typo. It was a tiny joke. If I wanted to focus on it, I would have said that the Apostles didn’t speak Creek, the tribes indigenous to the southeastern United States did.

Based upon the stance that these gospel authors were the fishermen disciples, it would be hard to make your claim from an RC pov. One could also make the point that the Nicodemus dialog in John 3 is based on a play on words as to the two potential meanings of the Greek word anothen. Perhaps the point here is to present a basic premise Jesus may have discussed by smithing a memorable dialog playing upon the Greek word as it was being presented to a Greek speaking people.

Not all the disciples were fishermen. And only two of them wrote Gospels - Matthew (who was a tax collector, and necessarily literate, for accounting purposes), and John.

One thing you’ve failed to consider is that the scribe may not have had the skill to transliterate into a more fluid Greek. However, this is not the stance of the RCC, which denies an earlier Hebrew/Aramaic source.

Where does the RCC deny an earlier Hebrew/Aramaic source? Fr. Rene Laurentin, a Catholic priest, is the one who explains why it’s true in the links I provided. (Obviously, a priest can hold heterodox views, but I don’t think he does, at least here). Is there somewhere you read or heard that the Church denies an earlier version?

The RCC says the Greek text is inspired, but it’s knowingly affirmed the inspiration of Greek version of the translated Dueterocanonical text (the Book of Sirach comes with an introduction whereby the translator explains that his grandfather wrote the Hebrew version). God doesn’t just inspire primary sources.

Which is it - a transliterated source, a Hebrew who is writing with limited fluidity in Greek, or a bilingual disciple?

My guess is a transliterated source, but I don’t think the answer to this has a lot of theological importance. In any case, for it to be any of the three suggests that it’s an old and Jewish-origin Gospel, which is what it claims to be.

Thanks for the links. I’ll peruse them when time allows.

You’re welcome!

Other than judging, ‘talking down’ in this aside, and finding excuses to feign insult…

I wasn’t feigning insult. I find your behaviour unreasonable. Would you talk to people this way in person, or is this just the product of the anonymity of the Internet? Why can’t reasonable people talk (and even disagree) reasonably?

back on topic, one need not even take classes in Greek or Hebrew to use search engines to discover the original words of the text and their potential meanings. It soon becomes evident that there are wordplays and transliterations.

Agreed. Both of these things (the word-plays found only in Hebrew and the transliterations) point to an early Hebrew source (oral or written) transliterated into Greek.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

If the church fathers said it, then it must be so? Then James, not Peter, received the leadership of the church as Eusebius said. Do you agree?

If the Church Fathers say something individually, it’s decent evidence of the validity of the things (less so when it’s contradicted by virtually every other Church Father, like with the leadership of the Church – although i think Eusebius meant the church in Jerusalem, anyways).

Think of it like eyewitness testimony, or secondhand testimony. A single eyewitness might get details wrong, and the Church affirms that the Fathers are wrong (individually) in various instances - no one claims infallibility for their writings. But when you have a lot of Fathers saying the same thing, or even one or two saying something and not being contradicted, it’s a strong indication of the thing in question’s reliability.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

What do you make of the seams in the text or the problems that appear when the Beloved Disciple and Peter are in the same passages?

The Beloved Disciple is John, not Peter.
What seams in the text?

Do you see any possibility that the 4th gospel was written by the Johannine community over time?

If I remember correctly, Pope Benedict XVI seems to suggest it could have been written by a disciple of John in his book Jesus of Nazareth.

John’s held up as a model of discipleship, and so when we read “Beloved Disciple,” we should understand that to mean John in a historical sense, but all of us in an instructive sense. John (or his disciple) is saying, “Be like me” (or, “Be like John”).

If that’s true, then John 21:24 is the student of John’s saying that he’s basing the Gospel off of John’s oral and written testimony. John 19:35 says it’s eyewitness testimony, but that’s true either way (since the student would be recording John’s eyewitness testimony).

 

[Q_Bee]

The Beloved Disciple is John, not Peter.

?

What seams in the text?

1. The “First Sign” and the “Second Sign”: John 2:11 and 4:54: Jesus performs his first sign in Cana of Galilee, changing water into wine (2:11). The “second sign” takes place after returning to Galilee from Judea, healing the Capernaum official’s son (4:54). A problem is evident when one reads what happened between the first and second signs as one reads that while Jesus was in Jerusalem many came to believe in him “because they saw the signs that he was doing” (2:23). This appears to indicate that the author used various sources and melded them together, but maintained a theological adherence to “seven signs” while the text evidences additional signs.
2. Jerusalem and the “Land of Judea”: John 2:23 – 3:21 and 3:22: Verse 2:23 tells us that Jesus was in Jerusalem, the capitol of Judea. While there, Nicodemus comes to him by night and the dialog based on the Greek word “anothen” takes place, which concludes in vs 3:21, after which vs 3:22 the text says, “After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea”. But they are already in Judea at its capitol. Some modern translations get around this problem by mistranslating in order to make the text say that they went in the “countryside of Judea”, but this is not the meaning of the Greek word ?? [ge / ghay] – “land”, country, territory, region.
3. Jerusalem and The Other Side of the Sea of Galilee: John 5:1 and 6:1: In John 5:1 Jesus goes to Jerusalem, where the entire chapter tells of his teaching and healing there. But this is followed by the author’s puzzling comment: “After this Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee” (6:1). This poses the question as to how he can go to the ‘other side’ when he is nowhere near the Sea of Galilee, but is in Jerusalem.
4. “Lord, where are you going?”: John 13:36 and 16:5: At the Last Supper Peter asks, “Lord, where are you going?” (13:36). Shortly after, Thomas says to Jesus, “Lord, we do not know where you are going” (14:5). Several minutes later Jesus states, “But now I am going to him who sent me; yet none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going’” (16:5).
5. “Rise, let us be on our way” and “Rise, let us go”: John 14:31 and 18:1: After delivering a speech that takes nearly a chapter and a half, Jesus says to the disciples, “Rise, let us be on our way” (14:31). But, instead of Jesus and the disciples leaving, Jesus launches into the ‘true vine’ discourse, which goes on through chapters 15, 16, and 17. Jesus and his disciples do not leave until this discourse is finished, upon which, Jesus says, “Rise, let us go” (18:1). Then they actually do get up and leave.

If I remember correctly, Pope Benedict XVI seems to suggest it could have been written by a disciple of John in his book Jesus of Nazareth.

Let’s put this into context with an excerpt from: BXVI - Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg, Tuesday, 12 September 2006:

This inner rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry was an event of decisive importance not only from the standpoint of the history of religions, but also from that of world history - it is an event which concerns us even today. Given this convergence, it is not surprising that Christianity, despite its origins and some significant developments in the East, finally took on its historically decisive character in Europe.

John’s held up as a model of discipleship, and so when we read “Beloved Disciple,” we should understand that to mean John in a historical sense, but all of us in an instructive sense. John (or his disciple) is saying, “Be like me” (or, “Be like John”).

Or, alternatively, we can think like those early church fathers who believed that. if someone were leaning on Jesus’ chest, it must be a young male… so, therefore, it ‘must be John’. How very Greek this is! It couldn’t be a woman? It had to be a young male?

If that’s true, then John 21:24 is the student of John’s saying that he’s basing the Gospel off of John’s oral and written testimony. John 19:35 says it’s eyewitness testimony, but that’s true either way (since the student would be recording John’s eyewitness testimony).

One could say that most of the material came from a reference to an eye witness account. Even Luke, which might be based largely upon Paul’s information to Luke, depends then upon what Paul says he exclusively experienced after the fact. So, is Paul’s experience an ‘eye witness account’?

 

[Belloc_Fan]

?

I’m saying that it’s not weird for John and Peter to be in the same place? There’s nothing unusual about this… what problem do you have with the appearance of the Beloved Disciple (John) and Peter together?

1. The “First Sign” and the “Second Sign”: John 2:11 and 4:54:

He says it’s the second miracle in Galilee. Jerusalem’s not in Galilee, where John says Jesus was performing miracles in between those two points. That’s not a contradiction at all… it actually explains the intermediate period really well.

So it’s entirely possible that was literally the second miracle Jesus had performed in Galilee. I take the view that I think you’re taking: that it’s the second of the seven that John’s mentioning. That’s he’s basically saying, “this is my second point,” rather than “this is only the second miraculous thing Jesus has done.” John is clear that there were other miracles (whether in Galilee or not, he doesn’t say) which aren’t included in his Gospel account. He purposely chose seven, because of its theological significance - I don’t think anyone denies that. Even the other Gospels mention more miracles.

1. Jerusalem and the “Land of Judea”: John 2:23 – 3:21 and 3:22

I agree that “countryside” is a poor (and even misleading) translation. Two things could be happening.
One, Jesus was in Capernaum. The end of John 2 mentions that He’d gone back there for a few days, but then went up to Jerusalem right before Passover, and He performed miracles “while there,” suggesting He wasn’t just permanently staying there. In fact, Capernaum claimed to have where Jesus lived during His adult life. Capernaum is in Galilee, so this would make sense.

Two, is that the use just means that He went travelling around. He went to Jerusalem for a specific purpose, but once in Judea, He went out into the land of Judea. This is what the translators are suggesting when they translate it countryside. The author of John 3 clearly knows that Jerusalem is in Judea – He knows about the Jewish ruling council there (John 3:1), so it would be a big stretch to say that someone so familiar with the specifics of Jerusalem wouldn’t know what country it was in. I think it’s more like if someone said today, “I met with x group in Moscow, and afterwards, went out and saw Russia.” If they’re accurately describing x group being in Moscow, you have to assume they know Moscow’s in Russia.

1. Jerusalem and The Other Side of the Sea of Galilee: John 5:1 and 6:1: In John 5:1

This actually gives weight to the thing I said earlier (my 1 to the last question). John’s Gospel seems to assume that the reader knows that Jesus lived in Capernaum, or somewhere there abouts – at least, that Jesus was a Galilean. John 5:1 says that “Jesus went up to Jerusalem for a feast of the Jews.” He’s going up for a specific purpose – if I say “so-and-so went home for Christmas,” you assume they didn’t go home permanently, and that they returned. Tiberias is on the other side of the Sea of Galilee from Capernaum. John just doesn’t include every “and then He came home again.” It’s strongly implied in the text. Same thing for your last question – Jesus went up to Jerusalem for Passover in John 2:23. He would have returned again.

1. “Lord, where are you going?”: John 13:36 and 16:5:

This is the strongest of the seeming contradictions which you presented. I suspected the answer, but had to actually look this one up. lookinguntojesus.net/ata20050612.htm provides a good answer. If you put the quotes into context, Jesus isn’t saying “none of you have ever asked where I’m going.” He’s saying, “I’m telling you these things which strongly suggest I’m about to be crucified, and you’re not even wanting to find out more.” He’s speaking to their present state, not providing a history of the conversation. I think Peter’s question in 13:36 was more like, “Why are you talking like you’re leaving us?” and Thomas isn’t actually asking where He’s going. Read it in the context of 14:4 – Jesus is talking about Heaven, and Thomas is still confused on why Jesus is going to leave. I think Jesus is pointing out that they’re more worried about what’s going to happen to them when He’s gone, then about Him.