When were the Gospels written? And by whom?

[turtleoompa]

Great discussions! Keep it up!

 

[jean8]

Thankyou Belloc!

If you have a study Bible this information can be found in the beginning of each book.
Matthew, was written by Matthew, (Levi)
Date probably between A.D. 60-65
Setting, Matthew was a Jewish tax collector.
He later became one of Jesus’ disciples.
Key verse :5:17
Key people, Jesus , Mary, Joseph,John the Baptist,
the diciples, the religious leaders,Caiaphas, Pilate,
and Mary Magadalene.

Do you have a Study Bible? If you do not, I strongly suggest that you buy one. You will be blessed.

God bless,
jean8

 

[guanophore]

There are several other gospels out there.

A group of individuals(self-appointed) got together and decided which texts would be the “official” texts of christianity. Before that there were hundreds of christian sects running around with their own documents.

The Gospel of Thomas is the most prevalent and definately well worth the read. It has less of the hell-fire and brimestone so often attributed to christianity, and seems to be a more honest version of Jesus teachings, without the attempts to appeal to phrophecies and different types of audiences(like the current gospels do)

At the end of the day, many people had many ideas about who christ was. A group of people decided to make it official and chose for christianity, what it would follow from that point onward.

It’s up to you to decide wether they got it right

You are right, there are many “gospels” out there. Yours being one of them. However, we would consider a gospel such as yours “false”, since it does not represent the facts.

 

[Shredderbeam]

What fourth option? And I find it uniquely compelling in the case of Jesus. The usual argument against is something like, “a person can have a sane and honest belief in a mistaken fact,” but that doesn’t really work coherently regarding someone claiming to be God. Presumably no one sane thinks they’re God just b/c somebody told them - I don’t see much room for “mistaken fact” which isn’t covered by “lunatic.”

This is where I feel uncomfortable. You’re ruling out “sane and honest belief”, which I don’t think can be done. I see no logical reason why somebody couldn’t mistakenly consider themselves divine.
Belloc Fan:

Not just “feels divinely inspired” (the New Testament writers fit that bill), but “claims to be God Himself,” and uses the Old Testament terms for God, which were considered too sacred for mere mortals to use.

The point is that a lunatic of the level of mistaking themselves (and only themselves - we’re not talking about some guru) as God is *rather *insane - maybe not “seizing,” but definitely “spouting gibberish.” And it’s quite a stretch to assume that the same person can be that insane and still be such a cogent moral teacher as to earn the respect of even non-Christians.

You’re essentially stating that if a person was insane enough to consider themselves God, then they must be insane in all respects, always, with no potential for lucidity. I don’t think that’s the case. It’s very difficult to rule out a one-time religious experience (or hallucination!) that truly convinced him that he was God…or that he was a messenger from God whose claims were shifted a tad when they were first written down.
Belloc Fan:

Buddha didn’t claim to be God. He was a (pretty) good moralist. Jesus was a good moralist, and saying He was God: it seems to me much more coherent to say “Jesus was thoroughly Good - He was a good moralist *because *He was God.” To accept the “liar” part of the trilemma, you’d have to say “Jesus devoted His life to helping others, but He simultaneously was misleading them to damnation, and He ultimately went to His death to not have to admit lying.”

The liar part is improbable. From what I can see in the histories, Jesus was granted many opportunities to repent. I find it doubtful that he would have such high pride.
Belloc Fan:

If a massive amount of testimonial evidence isn’t conclusive, I’m sort of at a loss for what historical events you *will *believe in. Most of our history isn’t supported by archeology (I’m not saying they conflict, just that archeology can’t do all that much to prove that Mark Anthony existed, for instance).

The testimonial evidence isn’t that massive, though. The first written accounts are from some 35 years after his death, and they’re not that many in number.
Belloc Fan:

These people risked their lives, and more importantly their salvation, to spread this message. There’s no motive to lie. If they’re lying, they’re doing so knowing that they will likely be tortured to death and then go to Hell for eternity.

I am not accusing them of lying, I am accusing them of being mistaken.
Belloc Fan:

I’ve never heard a good rationale for why they would lie. So that switches the gears to delusions. These delusions are more than convincing yourself a medium stick is long. The Apostles claimed to have eaten with the resurrected Jesus, and touched Him to make sure He wasn’t a ghost. Thomas, who wasn’t with the rest the first time, thought it was a delusion, but was there the second time Jesus appeared, and touched His wounds. It’s far-fetched (and to my knowledge, unparalleled in history) for a group of people to all think that they talked to, ate with, and touched a person they knew to be dead. And the Apostles are just the beginning (and arguably, the weakest link for gauging veracity). The numerous eyewitnesses are spread out over a series of appearances. In St. Paul’s case, he wasn’t even part of their group - he was coming to persecute them! I understand the (in my opinion, weak) argument that group-think somehow accounts for this, but it certainly doesn’t account for Paul’s conversion to the religion he was trying to suppress. Delusion really doesn’t fit the bill, either.

(cont. - sorry, I’m sort of long-winded)

Interesting. When were these accounts of eating with the resurrected Jesus written?

 

[Shredderbeam]

Belloc Fan:

True. But *Mary *would know, as would her spouse Joseph, (and in the case of non-virginity, whoever she’d previously had relations with). Luke’s Gospel account is almost certainly based off of Mary’s personal testimony, and the first couple chapters are told from essentially her view. But if you were the mother of a delusional good-hearted young man who falsely believed Himself to be God, it seems to would be the reasonable human response to take him aside and let him know the truth. In any event, if Mary weren’t a Virgin (rendering the whole thing an obvious sham), it would be unthinkably cruel to let countless people go to their violent deaths to preserve your dead Son’s delusions.

The claim of Virgin birth doesn’t probably close the book on the question, but it certainly raises the stakes. It’s one thing to be tricked into thinking a medium stick is long, quite another to be tricked into thinking you conceived your Son without losing your Virginity. So to reject the central claims of Christianity, you must say that Jesus was mistaken or lying, and that Mary and Joseph lied, and at least a good chunk of the hundreds of eyewitnesses (remember, the mass delusion thing only works if there are people “in” on it - a classroom full of people doesn’t mistake a stick). There would have to be an incredible number of people who, simultaneously, were doing good works and devoting their lives to spreading Christ’s message (theological as well as moral), while spreading what would be on of the most pernicious lies in history. Remember also that these people were largely pious Jews prior to becoming Christians: they would have to have believed they were condemning themselves and everyone they converted to Hell. I can’t conceive of any possible rationale for this. I genuinely think that (while there’s certainly not 100% proof), the evidence is stronger for this than, say, the evidence that OJ did it (I bet OJ’s jury would agree with me, at least ).

Well, given that traditional societal reactions to losing one’s virginity outside of wedlock have remained the same since 2,000 years ago, I would very much expect her to not admit to intercourse. I suppose she would have told Joseph, who might have believed her after her tale of a glorious vision…or perhaps he conspired with her. I don’t claim to know, I’m just speculating here.
Belloc Fan:

The premise of this requires a group of people to be “in on it.” So to accept the social pressure game as credible, you first have to decide that a pretty substantial group of previously devout people were knowingly lying about something as important as salvation. Had one or two students claimed that the stick was medium it wouldn’t have caught on. So you’re right that social pressure, group think, etc., can reduce the number of bad faith actors - and the rest can be written off as mild delusions. But I don’t think there’s a reasonable explanation for even (say) one hundred bad faith actors. And again, it doesn’t account for the myriad appearances. It isn’t like Jesus showed up once, and it was just one-time eyewitness testimony from there on. Jesus appeared often, and frequently to small groups. Paul’s list is nowhere near conclusive. The other Gospel writers include various other people as well.

Second, remember that claiming to see Jesus, especially early on, would be pretty embarrassing. Even if you’re telling the truth, people would laugh at you, think you’re insane, and quite possibly try and kill you for spreading heresy. So I think people would be less likely to just “assume” they saw Jesus because everyone else thought they did. It’s a more important detail than the length of the stick.

Third, there’s no plausible long-stick. You hold up a long-stick and people say it’s medium, and I (for some reason) assume they’re right because they’re *all *saying it. Weird, but understanable. But if the teacher holds up nothing, and people say it’s a medium-stick, I’m not going to be like, “Oh, that’s a medium stick.” So in addition to thinking a large group of people are lying, and that their victims are willing to readily believe something which will be detrimental to their lives if untrue, you also have to have some sort of long-stick. People touched Jesus’ wounds, so the long-stick would have to be (basically) another crucified person who looked enough like Jesus to fool His closest friends. Oh yeah. And could appear in locked rooms.

Right, the stick experiment is not the end-all argument, it’s an idea that might explain a part of the alleged miracles.

The main argument, though, is that I don’t know how accurate these texts are, given that they were written at least 35 years later.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Belloc Fan:

We don’t, that’s true. But they did. And the message continues on only because new people (with the ability to verify to a much greater extent than we have) accepted it, and believed it was true. At the time, there were probably countless more authentic written testimonies of interactions with Christ, etc., but they’re lost to time. All we can say now is that Paul massively upped the ante, and nobody called it a bluff. And to me, that’s pretty good evidence it wasn’t a bluff.

Well, they say they did. I can’t really just take their word for it.
Belloc Fan:

There were guards posted outside of Jesus’ tomb. And I think that the lack of the body is simply an overwhelming piece in a puzzle with lots of other strong evidence.

It’s a piece of evidence if it’s true, but we must consider that the guards were attacked, bribed, etc.
Belloc Fan:

It’s message included a pretty thorough denunciation of the Roman Imperial lifestyle: a sexual ethos which was totally against its time (and ours). And it was a walking death warrant.

Well, it sort of backs those difficult beliefs with a very thorough praising of faith. The early Christians really and truly believed that Christianity was 100% true, and that all of their suffering would be repaid a thousandfold in heaven.
Belloc Fan:

I really like the way you’re approaching this issue, testing the claims presented. If you do that with an open mind, it’s a good way to develop a strong faith. As long as things stay pleasant like this, I’ll entertain whatever questions or refutations you’ve got, and do my best to answer them.

Well cheers! I try to keep the e-drama out of forums, lol.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

I mixed your order up a little, I hope you don’t mind:

You’re essentially stating that if a person was insane enough to consider themselves God, then they must be insane in all respects, always, with no potential for lucidity. I don’t think that’s the case. It’s very difficult to rule out a one-time religious experience (or hallucination!) that truly convinced him that he was God…

This is where I feel uncomfortable. You’re ruling out “sane and honest belief”, which I don’t think can be done. I see no logical reason why somebody couldn’t mistakenly consider themselves divine.

It would be honest, but I think quite insane. Once again, we’re not talking about some general “God is in all of us” divine: we’re talking about someone who can say, “Yeah, I’m monotheistic, and also, I am God.” That would be a huge glaring mistake, and seemingly in total deviation from Judaism. To even make that mistake, it seems to me, Jesus would have to be a megalomaniac. Humble people just don’t mistakenly think they’re God - people who already sort of suspect (deep down) that they *might *be God, because the world revolves around them… those are people who could maybe, theoretically, accidentally think themselves God. And yet Jesus was incredibly humble… “mistake” doesn’t fit with His character any better than “liar,” in my opinion.

The liar part is improbable. From what I can see in the histories, Jesus was granted many opportunities to repent. I find it doubtful that he would have such high pride.

Great! So we can take liar off of the table. Lunatic is still on, but in a modified form: a sort of one-time crazy experience that sticks with Him for life. But the evidence we have from the NT refutes this, too. The Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-9, Mark 9:2-8, Luke 9:28-36), observed by Peter, James, and John, occurs *after *He’s already claimed to be God. So these would have to be recurrent hallucinations, and hallucinations others saw (Jesus’ Baptism also included light, the voice of God, and the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove coming down from Heaven). These would also be auditory **and **visual hallucinations. Mild lunacy just doesn’t seem to fit: this doesn’t appear to be lunacy, and it certainly wasn’t mild.

The testimonial evidence isn’t that massive, though. The first written accounts are from some 35 years after his death, and they’re not that many in number.

I think that the general consensus is that the earliest of Paul’s epistles are from around 51 A.D. And when he’s writing, he’s defending orthodoxy, he’s not advancing a radical new idea. What I mean is that he never tries to introduce people to Christianity by epistle - that would be an inefficient way to do it. So it makes sense that in the earliest days of Christianity, when they’re spreading the message, they’re doing it orally - in synagogues, in the streets, etc. The Book of Acts even describes all of this. Their emphasis was on building Christ’s Church, not giving historians some *primo *primary source documents. As the Church spreads geographically, it becomes inefficient to instruct everyone in person, so the epistles and eventually, the Gospels, are written.

The history is important, because there’s a big difference between someone writing about something that they saw a long time ago and have given little further thought to, and someone writing down the same basic message that they’ve been telling people for a couple decades. A few other things to note:
(1) We’re dealing with a large Church by the time of NT writing, filled with many people with personal experiences, people who talked with Jesus (before or after Resurrection). The rest were people who converted, having been told certain things about Jesus. If those things suddenly and radically changed, someone would have noticed. [Christianity wouldn’t have worked as a cult, b/c the Church was too spread out - so there’s no chance that they’d just go along with it because Paul or someone else said to: Paul’s letters even show that parts of the Church didn’t respect his authority]
(2) There were probably lots more writings that we don’t have. Not just other writers (which is certainly true - and many of them writing the Church considered orthodox but not Divinely-inspired), but other writings of the same authors. Things like notes, earlier letters (Paul mentions earlier letters in one of his epistles, but the letter just doesn’t exist anymore), and so forth.

While we’re left with the New Testament and certain early writings of the Apostolic Fathers, the early Church had pretty extensive fact-checking resources, and a lot on the line. These passed the muster of a much better informed Church, so we can safely accept them as orthodox.

…or that he was a messenger from God whose claims were shifted a tad when they were first written down.

What we can be sure of (based on what I just said) is that Jesus didn’t just claim to be a teacher or rabbi, and his followers suddenly and inexplicably turned Him into their God, and rejected the monotheism of their birth. Had Jesus not claimed to be God, He never would have been crucified, and no one would have ever converted from Judaism to Christianity (there wouldn’t have even been a need to convert).

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Interesting. When were these accounts of eating with the resurrected Jesus written?

See above. This isn’t something you would remember incorrectly - this would be at the center of your belief in the resurrection, if you were an Apostle. John 21:13-15 includes the bit about eating. Check out Luke 24:37-39 and John 20:19-31, also. The Apostles made sure they weren’t collectively going crazy.

I am not accusing them of lying, I am accusing them of being mistaken.

Great - liar is off the table for the Apostles, too. Mistaken doesn’t work for Mary, but we’ll touch on that next. It also doesn’t work for the 3 disciples at the Transfiguration. It also doesn’t account for the numerous miracles they saw Jesus perform: If someone claims you need to convert from the religion of your birth to a belief in Him, you’d probably want something substantial to go off of. The miracles Jesus performed were just that verification, that let the disciples know He wasn’t crazy. Some critics want to deny that they were real, because they’re supernatural (which is a circular approach to examining the text, obviously), but they would *have to *have existed, or we’re back to the Apostles all being liars.

Well, given that traditional societal reactions to losing one’s virginity outside of wedlock have remained the same since 2,000 years ago, I would very much expect her to not admit to intercourse. I suppose she would have told Joseph, who might have believed her after her tale of a glorious vision…or perhaps he conspired with her. I don’t claim to know, I’m just speculating here.

The same thing I said about the Apostles applies here. It’s one thing to not want to admit having premarital sex. But to let your Son go to death because He believes He’s God, while you know He’s not … would be sick. Mary wouldn’t have even have had to have told the world: just Jesus. Instead, we find her at the foot of the Cross, worshiping her own Son. Then consider all of the other people she watched go to their death for the faith. To have the power to stop all of that and not would have made Mary (and whoever else knew of her non-Virginity) truly evil. It’s just not a believable view of Mary, in my estimation (the idea the apple fell that far from the tree, for starters! ).

Right, the stick experiment is not the end-all argument, it’s an idea that might explain a part of the alleged miracles.

Yeah. I just wanted to make sure we both agreed that the stick experiment can’t explain the core phenomenon.

The main argument, though, is that I don’t know how accurate these texts are, given that they were written at least 35 years later.

Some of these were sooner than 35 years, and certainly these weren’t the only early texts. The writers devoted their lives to the message, and there were a good number of them working largely independently (which naturally prevents deviations: one person’s memory may fail, but not this many). If they got even the crux of the message right (and it would be inconceivable that they didn’t), then Jesus is Lord. If Jesus is Lord, we can safely rely upon all that stuff about the Holy Spirit preserving the Bible, since it is “God-breathed” (meaning that they’d have “assistance” remembering). So if they got the core right, it’s all right.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Well, they say they did. I can’t really just take their word for it.

Who says who did what? Ha - sorry!

It’s a piece of evidence if it’s true, but we must consider that the guards were attacked, bribed, etc.

The Apostles attacking or bribing the guards wouldn’t have made sense. In addition to being against their own moral code, it would mean that they also knowingly falsified the Resurrection, and then somehow got lots of other people to “see” the Resurrected Christ. They’d have to be liars and frauds, and yet none of them ever cracked under pressure (in some cases, we’re talking torture and death - in all cases, lifelong hardships), told on the others, etc. It wouldn’t explain Paul’s conversion, etc. The theory wouldn’t account for all of the evidence, and would strain at the bounds of reason to accept that the Apostles would have done this (instead of saying something like, “Well, I guess He was just a good moral teacher,” and going back about their lives). What would their motive be for such a thing? Just to seem right, when they knew they were wrong? It’s pushing it.

On the other hand… the guards were bribed! Check out Matthew 28:11-15 - the guards and Jewish elders agreed to a cover-up (the elders publicly blamed the guards, privately defending him if word got to the governor - the guards went along with it for a large sum of money). Because they didn’t know *what *had happened (and refused to believe the obvious… that it was true), they decided to just put out an official story to avoid the turmoil belief in the Resurrection would cause.

Well, it sort of backs those difficult beliefs with a very thorough praising of faith. The early Christians really and truly believed that Christianity was 100% true, and that all of their suffering would be repaid a thousandfold in heaven.

So true! But lots of religions (including many of the Roman cults) promise Heaven and rewards. The power of this one is the power of God at work in the world. Christianity’s early history is particularly unique: its rise in the face of adversity was meteoric.

Well cheers! I try to keep the e-drama out of forums, lol.

[SIGN]Huzzah![/SIGN]
I’m a former debater (8 years), and that tone is totally inappropriate for Christian apologetics, so it’s a constant struggle. You’re making it easy to stay nice, by being nice yourself. I like being able to tackle substantial questions without it getting ugly.

 

[Kathy_Ostrander]

Hogwash! No real biblical scholar takes the disciples as a reference to the 12 tribes. Where did you get such dis-information? Perhaps from a Watchtower magazine?

Why are we saying Jesus only had 12 disciples? He had 12 Apostles and we do know their names, I’m pretty sure any Bible (especially Catholic), will name them by name, but he had and still has 1,000,000s of disciples. I believe myself to be one of His disciples and I believe you are too!
Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut!
Kathy Ostrander

 

[jean8]

You are right, there are many “gospels” out there. Yours being one of them. However, we would consider a gospel such as yours “false”, since it does not represent the facts.

False? Why?
You’ll find the same information in the catholic bible which I own,
What can you offer about the book of Matthew?

jean8

 

[jean8]

False? Why?
You’ll find the same information in the catholic bible which I own,
What can you offer about the book of Matthew?

jean8

I think I should make some additions to what I wrote. Breath easy, I’m taking the short road.
Please see, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

God bless,
jean8

 

[A_Few_Good_Men]

It’s easy!

All the Gospels (including the Acts of the Apostles) were written before AD64-67 excpet John’s which was written much later.

Confusion also arises with the word “written”. Even today we have many professional writers and journalists who write books for other people. Does anybody really believe that Geri Halliwell and Madonna actually sit their computers and write children’s books? I don’t!

Matthew was written Matthew under the instructions of James. Mark was written by Mark under the instructions of Peter.
Both Luke and Acts were written by Luke under the instructions of Paul. It’s clear that Luke was aimed at the Gentiles which is why it has the Jews rejecting Jesus (Luke 4:14-30). This incident is not recorded in either Matthew or Mark. earlier gospels.

 

[Casperspeaks]

The gospels were originally written in Hebrew…check out The Hebrew Christ by Tresmontant and Matthew was probably the first and yes, around 30-60 AD which includes Paul and Apocalypse. Da Vinci and Mr. Brown will be roasting hotdogs together with all his money wrapped around his neck someday…‘he who denies me before man, him will I deny before my Father’. Thanks michael

 

[driscll_books]

A reading of John’s Gospel provides many internal proofs that he wrote it.

 

[Casperspeaks]

A reading of John’s Gospel provides many internal proofs that he wrote it.

Definitely but it was not the first written. I’m hoping an archeological find will give them to us in Hebrew as in the beginning.

 

[Salah]

Chris1888,
I see your question has attracted quite some comment! As far as the gospels and their normative value are concerned. it is good to stick to some basic accepted truths.

Yes the gospels were written quire some time after the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ. They flowed mainly from the teaching of the Apostles and the experiences of the early Christian Communities. The gospels, or parts of them, may have been written personally by people who were Apostles of the Lord, like Matthew and John, or by people who were very closely associated with them and accompanied them as they made their teaching (evangelizing) rounds. The baseline is that the gospels somehow go back to the apostolic times and are accepted as normative for our faith.

The gospels are inspired writings and inspiration is God’s gift to whom he chooses. The Holy Spirit guides wisely those who recognize the normative value of the gospels and authoritatively present them as part of the acceptable scripture of the Church: the nourishing ans sustaining Word of God.

If you can make the time, read the Church’s Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum), especially Chapter Six. The word dogmatic should not scare you. I’ll keep you in my prayers Salah

 

[paul_c]

The booklet attached to Post 10 is a long read but fairly compelling in defending :

The traditional authorship of the bibles by Matthew, Mark , Luke and John
The order of the bible’s being Matthew, Luke,Mark, and John
(although there is a case for matthew, Mark, Luke and John)
The timing of the Bibles all predating the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70AD (wiht the exception of the very end of John’s gospel)

I personally never understood why so many current exegetes (including the editors of my current St. Joseph edition of the Catholic Bible), support the Mark first theory, since it flew in the face of 2000 years of Church Tradition and drove them all to believe that none of the Gospel accounts were from eyewitnesses and that they all dated beyond 70AD. It seems so obvious that Luke had to have been written before the execution of Peter and Paul, otherwise it would have been certainly have been discussed in Acts. As it is, Acts abruptly stops in ~62AD. and since we know Luke’s bible was written first, it must predate that…

 

[patrick457]

Definitely but it was not the first written. I’m hoping an archeological find will give them to us in Hebrew as in the beginning.

I doubt that will happen. Personally, I hold to the belief that only Matthew wrote in Hebrew or Aramaic or whatever vernacular language the Jews used back then and that the others wrote mainly in Greek (perhaps Matthew even made a revision of his earlier Hebrew work into Greek, which became our present-day Gospel of Matthew).

 

[Bill_Samuel]

The original manuscripts (at least certainly anything widely accepted as the original manuscripts) have not been discovered. So we can’t use the original manuscripts to date authorship. We know it must be before we have references to them by the names they are known by. But how much before that is a matter of circumstantial evidence and various other factors, and can not be determined definitively. Neither can authorship be determined definitively.

I share the skepticism at the assumption built into the most common dating that Jesus could not have actually prophesied the destruction of the temple, and any such prophecy must have been put into the text after the fact. This raises difficult questions about the capabilities of our Savior and the integrity of the Gospel writers. I am inclined to believe they are earlier than the assumption of most leading scholars. Or at least, any source material (like “Q”) and oral tradition dates from earlier.

A number of books called gospels were written. The basic process by which the four came to be regarded as canonical is based on what the church community generally regarded as legitimate. The non-canonical ones never received wide acceptance in the Christian church. I think the early church was better equipped to evaluate the genuineness of gospels than scholars of today.