B
- Status
Q
Q_Bee
Guest
The argument for any given author to a given gospel is really a waste of time since they are anonymous and, without proofs, we have to take another’s word for it. It boils down to whether we are willing to blindly take the word of another, who also does not know. The idea of taking another’s word for it when they are distant from the actual event is ludicrous. Even if a group of people collectively put forth their best guess, that’s all it is. The explanation for doing so might be as a means to alleviate the discomfort of knowing one doesn’t know, which allows for a false sense of safety. Or, to argue vis-a-vis the doctrines of the church is simply parroting since doctrines are formed on the same basis.Yes!!! Absolutely.
Why not try to take it apart step by step?
Lacking concrete evidence, if I can’t know a thing for myself, why would I rely upon someone else’s opinion when they can’t know any better than I can?
Can we fall back on “inspiration” when the church teaches that the apostolic gifts died off in the 1st century?
It seems the philosophical argument Paul puts forth in 1 Corinthians 13 has to be operative for the system to work. He tells the people of Corinth that their gifts cannot be trusted, and only faith, hope, and love remain through the argument that we cannot know NOW, only LATER… then face-to-face. In fact, among the people involved, his unverifiable claim is the only claim of a face-to-face experience, making him the supreme authority over others. This is the founding idea of institutional church in the West - that someone else can know something we cannot.
B
buffalo
Guest
The basis of the article is the beginning years. This makes it far from opinion. This puts it as close to the original as can be, unlike the historical critical method.
Q
Q_Bee
Guest
Are you saying that it makes it absolute fact?
B
buffalo
Guest
Pretty darn close.
But again, you are welcome to dispute the individual facts that make the whole.
Q
Q_Bee
Guest
See post #121.Pretty darn close.
But again, you are welcome to dispute the individual facts that make the whole.
S
Sir_Anthony
Guest
First question asked, when were the Gospels written?
Well, the synoptics in nearly complete form probably between 70 and 80. Though I think Mark and Matthew initially written much earlier, about 30 or so years. I think the problem with biblical scholarship is that when you read passages like Jesus saying that the temple will be torn down and rebuilt in three days, and the trouble that Jerusalem was going to happen, modern skeptical scholars that reject the nature of prophecy will say aha, this means they were written post-70. Or just because Mark was shorter, thus makes it older. I think from what I have read they probably went through several redactions and editions in order to clarify certain theological statements within the early Apstolic Church. The Gospel of John I could see either as around 80-100 or so and mostly because I have a tough believing that an illiterate Jew could write in very allegorical complex Greek.
Now, whom write the Gospels?
I am going to say that Matthew (also known as Levi) wrote his gospel. It makes sense, the Greek is kind of rough, but Matthew being a Levi, would mean he would have spent a lot of time at scribal school learning hebrew and greek and probably a little bit of latin. Hence the knowledge of scriptures would have been in grained in him which fits with the Jewishness of Matthew’s Gospel. This is my theory with Matthew, the so called Q-Gospel, I think was probably an Hebrew or Aramic Gospel written by Matthew. Then later on, Matthew decided to write a new Gospel in Greek to the diaspora communities.
Mark was probably written by Mark while he was travelling with Peter, either in Rome or someone outside of Palestine. The themes are fairly straightforward, there is no real complex metaphoric language or heavy scripture quotation aside from what is necessary. It may have been written in Hebrew or Aramaic originally and was roughly translated into Greek.
I think Luke is the easiest to ascribe authroship to because we have the Acts of the Apostles written in similar style and also you have a change in tense from they to we, which means the author is present with that group later in Acts. I think Luke wanted a more authoritative, historical version of events, so like a good historian he probably went to the best sources he had which would have been Mark and the Hebrew Matthew supplemented with information from either the Apostles or their followers. I personally see that Luke was writing numerous volumes on the early Church as an official historian. There are probably other lost books to him, because Acts of Apostles does end on a cliffhanger.
John is difficult, there is no other way around it. It is a complex theology, that was probably developed and formulated over decades. In addition, John’s Gospel was probably a supplemental gospel to Mark, which would make sense as Mark is Peter’s scribe and from what we get from the Acts of the Apostles and Paul’s letters the early Church was centered on three men, Peter, John, and James. Thus Peter has Mark compose a Gospel, which later in life John, being the last living apostles and probably having a copy of Mark, thought it was wise to include more information, hence why John and the synoptics share so few events in common. Indeed at the end of John it states that there aren’t enough books in the world to record all of the deeds of Jesus. I would say that John was probably dictating the Gospel to his disciples to record as he was probably illiterate and some of his disciples very talented writers wrote this beautiful Gospel.
This is just my theory thus far
Well, the synoptics in nearly complete form probably between 70 and 80. Though I think Mark and Matthew initially written much earlier, about 30 or so years. I think the problem with biblical scholarship is that when you read passages like Jesus saying that the temple will be torn down and rebuilt in three days, and the trouble that Jerusalem was going to happen, modern skeptical scholars that reject the nature of prophecy will say aha, this means they were written post-70. Or just because Mark was shorter, thus makes it older. I think from what I have read they probably went through several redactions and editions in order to clarify certain theological statements within the early Apstolic Church. The Gospel of John I could see either as around 80-100 or so and mostly because I have a tough believing that an illiterate Jew could write in very allegorical complex Greek.
Now, whom write the Gospels?
I am going to say that Matthew (also known as Levi) wrote his gospel. It makes sense, the Greek is kind of rough, but Matthew being a Levi, would mean he would have spent a lot of time at scribal school learning hebrew and greek and probably a little bit of latin. Hence the knowledge of scriptures would have been in grained in him which fits with the Jewishness of Matthew’s Gospel. This is my theory with Matthew, the so called Q-Gospel, I think was probably an Hebrew or Aramic Gospel written by Matthew. Then later on, Matthew decided to write a new Gospel in Greek to the diaspora communities.
Mark was probably written by Mark while he was travelling with Peter, either in Rome or someone outside of Palestine. The themes are fairly straightforward, there is no real complex metaphoric language or heavy scripture quotation aside from what is necessary. It may have been written in Hebrew or Aramaic originally and was roughly translated into Greek.
I think Luke is the easiest to ascribe authroship to because we have the Acts of the Apostles written in similar style and also you have a change in tense from they to we, which means the author is present with that group later in Acts. I think Luke wanted a more authoritative, historical version of events, so like a good historian he probably went to the best sources he had which would have been Mark and the Hebrew Matthew supplemented with information from either the Apostles or their followers. I personally see that Luke was writing numerous volumes on the early Church as an official historian. There are probably other lost books to him, because Acts of Apostles does end on a cliffhanger.
John is difficult, there is no other way around it. It is a complex theology, that was probably developed and formulated over decades. In addition, John’s Gospel was probably a supplemental gospel to Mark, which would make sense as Mark is Peter’s scribe and from what we get from the Acts of the Apostles and Paul’s letters the early Church was centered on three men, Peter, John, and James. Thus Peter has Mark compose a Gospel, which later in life John, being the last living apostles and probably having a copy of Mark, thought it was wise to include more information, hence why John and the synoptics share so few events in common. Indeed at the end of John it states that there aren’t enough books in the world to record all of the deeds of Jesus. I would say that John was probably dictating the Gospel to his disciples to record as he was probably illiterate and some of his disciples very talented writers wrote this beautiful Gospel.
This is just my theory thus far
B
buffalo
Guest
Spend some time here. It will fill in all the balnks.
The ChurchinHistory Information Centre
www.churchinhistory.org
THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS
[According to the Clementine Tradition]
By
Dennis Barton
**
The Gospels are Historical**
Q
Q_Bee
Guest
It is interesting how much assumption is made in the Clementine perspective and the subsequent quotes from those who lived in a latter era. It was even thought that Revelation was written by “John the Evangelist”, which is negated by a study of style and terms being used. Anyway, it is a drag when a poster can’t speak for themselves, but sends a link that encompasses a lengthy batch of information. Maybe the list ought to be interfacing with the author of the link instead of others here? At the very least, the person posting could take the time to copy/paste the material they feel is important to a point they are making.
B
buffalo
Guest
As I said, you are welcome to take it apart step by step. A blanket disagreement only goes so far.
I felt all the material important.
You speak for yourself? Where did you get your position from? Out of the blue? or are you also dependent on someone elses claims?
K
KLIBERA
Guest
The Beauty Of The Gospels Is That The Stories Are Different Else They Would Be Repeats. This Applies To The Birth Stories & The Resurrection Stories. We Have 3 Or 4 Resurrection Versions: Either 1 Angel, 2 Angels, Jesus Himself, The Road To Emmaeus. You Can See It In The 2 Major Jesus Movies: The Greatest Story & Jesus Of Nazareth. In The Greatest Story, It Uses The 1 Angel Version Which Is Either Mark Or Matthew. Jesus Of Nazareth Shows Mary Magdalene Confronting 2 Tillers Of The Soil, Whome Are Really Angels. There Is A Difference In Birth Stories In The Synoptics. Luke Gives You The Manger Version & The Shepherds Because There Was No Room In The Inn When They Were Making Their Way To The Census. Here It Is Assumed Joseph Was Always A Nazarene. Matthew Brings In The Idea Of Prophetic Fulfillment In Tracing The Bloodline; They Flee To Egypt. But Why Go To Egypt?
Q
Q_Bee
Guest
Because that’s where he got the “Our Father” prayer almost word-for-word from the Book of the Dead?
K
Kathy_Ostrander
Guest
Bible scholars use information from the writings to authenticate them. Each of the Books of the Bible if not directly written by the credited author, was written by students who knew and continued the same teaching that that author taught. There were many people at the time who helped put the writings together. We can know if the writings hold true to the teaching of the specific person based on the content, style, and knowledge of the historical period inwhich the author wrote. Many of the gnostic gospels are proven to be written hundreds of years after the credited author had died, and not sticking to things that that author was known to have taught. The Bible can be authenticated in the same way other works of literature can be authenticated. Also, we can tell if an idea is in agreement with the Bible and with what the early church fathers taught.
Kathy Ostrander
P
patrick457
Guest
Are we talking about the Egyptian Reu-Nu-Pert-Em-Hru or the Tibetan Bardo Thodol here?
For one thing, the Gospel writers couldn’t have copied the Reu-Nu-Pert-Em-Hru word-for-word in a sense, since by the Late Kingdom, the book was adapted to a new form called The Book of Breathings which remained in use until the end of the Ptolemaic Period in the 1st century BC. Plus, which recension or version of the Pert-Em-Hru did the Gospel writers copy (say, the Saite or the Theban Recensions)? And how did they, or Jesus, get their hands on a copy of a funerary text, intended to be used by and for dead people in the first place?
I’ve heard a variation of this, saying that the Pater Noster was actually taken from a purported Egyptian prayer to Amon or to Horus, but I’ve yet to see concrete evidence. Do you have any citations to prove your claim?
D
Dan86
Guest
The Gospel of Matthew was written by the Apostle Matthew (Levi) in Palestine around 41 A.D. The Gospel of Mark was written by John Marcus in Rome around 65 A.D. The Gospel of Luke was written by Luke in Caesarea around 56 A.D. The Gospel of John was written by the Apostle John in Ephesus around 98 A.D.
D
DixitDominus
Guest
One actually cannot hold as a Catholic that the books of the New Testament were written after approximately the late first century or early second century. This is because Scripture is part of public divine revelation which ended with the death of the last Apostle.
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
The gospels were written 50+ years after Jesus had been gone. About 15+ years after Paul was full-fledged into his work of spreading his Gospel. And all the four gospels were written after all the Pauline Letters were in circulation.
If you check the prefaces to the Gospels in the New American version of the Bible, sponsored by the Bishops’ Committee of the
Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, the gospel according to Mark was written in the year 70 after the destruction of the Temple, the
gospel of Luke in 75, Matthew in 85 and John between 95 and 100
CE. Mind you, this is a Catholic report.
Now, by whom were the gospels written? The writers were all Gentiles disciples of Paul, for two reasons: The first is that none
of the writings of the Nazarenes, disciples of Jesus was approved into the Canon of the NT due to their controversial character vis-a-vis the writings of Paul which were the partern used for the Canonization done in 327 CE by the Fathers of the Church. There were several other gospels which were rejected, that got either destroyed or hidden in the undergrounds of the Vatican.
The other reason why the gospels come from a Gentile pen is based on the fact that the authors had too poor a knowledge of being Jewish, and were too anxious to remove the blame for the death of Jesus from the Romans unto the Jews. This is Pauline influence, who all his life always kept a grudge against the Pharisees in general for having never allowed him to build a church in Israeli soil, and to the Nazarenes in particular.
Ben:
F
foundthelight
Guest
The prefaces to the Gospels from the NAB don’t count for much to many Catholics. They are the result of questionable scholarship with modernist influences. They do not carry the weight of official teaching such as what is in the Catechism. As for the rest of your post, I find such speculation interesting. Please direct us to your sources for this theory.The gospels were written 50+ years after Jesus had been gone. About 15+ years after Paul was full-fledged into his work of spreading his Gospel. And all the four gospels were written after all the Pauline Letters were in circulation.
If you check the prefaces to the Gospels in the New American version of the Bible, sponsored by the Bishops’ Committee of the
Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, the gospel according to Mark was written in the year 70 after the destruction of the Temple, the
gospel of Luke in 75, Matthew in 85 and John between 95 and 100
CE. Mind you, this is a Catholic report.
Now, by whom were the gospels written? The writers were all Gentiles disciples of Paul, for two reasons: The first is that none
of the writings of the Nazarenes, disciples of Jesus was approved into the Canon of the NT due to their controversial character vis-a-vis the writings of Paul which were the partern used for the Canonization done in 327 CE by the Fathers of the Church. There were several other gospels which were rejected, that got either destroyed or hidden in the undergrounds of the Vatican.
The other reason why the gospels come from a Gentile pen is based on the fact that the authors had too poor a knowledge of being Jewish, and were too anxious to remove the blame for the death of Jesus from the Romans unto the Jews. This is Pauline influence, who all his life always kept a grudge against the Pharisees in general for having never allowed him to build a church in Israeli soil, and to the Nazarenes in particular.
Ben:
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
The prefaces to the gospels in the NAB were sponsored by Bishops and not lay Catholics. If your high Catholic authorities are divided among themselves, it means only how much of credibility enjoys the Catholic Church.
Regarding the facts that the gospels were not written by Jews but by Gentiles, my sources that you request, is Jewish life. I have been living this life for almost 50 years. Therefore, I think I am invested with the authority to know what Jewish life is from what it’s not. So, about 80 percent of the whole NT is not Jewish and written by Gentiles who knew extremely little of Jewish life.
Ben:
F
foundthelight
Guest
And who ever said that the Bishops are perfect? There has always been differences of opinion in the Church. Some of those differences are minor as in the NAB notes, some are major and result in a Council being called to sort them out.The prefaces to the gospels in the NAB were sponsored by Bishops and not lay Catholics. If your high Catholic authorities are divided among themselves, it means only how much of credibility enjoys the Catholic Church.
Regarding the facts that the gospels were not written by Jews but by Gentiles, my sources that you request, is Jewish life. I have been living this life for almost 50 years. Therefore, I think I am invested with the authority to know what Jewish life is from what it’s not. So, about 80 percent of the whole NT is not Jewish and written by Gentiles who knew extremely little of Jewish life.
Ben:
You made several statements about the authorship of the Gospels. I asked you an honest question as to where you got your information so that I could further my studies. I find your answer about living the Jewish life to be evasive.
Since Jesus completed the Law and gave us a new Covenant why should the gospels and letters reflect only your version of Jewish thought?
- Status