An argument rose @ school and Iam still confused.Who wrote the first three gospels?
1.Matthew
2.Mark
3.John

And what makes them different from the Gospel of St Luke and the Acts of the Apostles?
Pls help with reference thank you

It is inferred that Mark + Another Book [Q] gave rise to the other sypnotic gospel hence even the Characters of the writers is a source of dispute..however the diffrences in account is alarming leading C. S. Lewis, for example, to reject the view "that every statement
in Scripture must be historical truth"

mkmyers45: It is inferred that Mark + Another Book [Q] gave rise to the other sypnotic gospel hence even the Characters of the writers is a source of dispute..however the diffrences in account is alarming leading C. S. Lewis, for example, to reject the view "that every statement
in Scripture must be historical truth"

Thanx for the input

HumbledbYGrace: Thanx for the input

Remember that most bible books authorship problem too..Also mark is said to be the Oldest of the gospel..They are many good gospels out there but only a few were selected by some men to be in the bible.

mkmyers45: Remember that most bible books authorship problem too..Also mark is said to be the Oldest of the gospel..They are many good gospels out there but only a few were selected by some men to be in the bible.

there is no concrete basis for saying Mark was the first to be written.theologians and historians just believe that Mark was the shortest and the others were developed from Mark and embellished

Delafruita:
there is no concrete basis for saying Mark was the first to be written.theologians and historians just believe that Mark was the shortest and the others were developed from Mark and embellished

you just contradicted yourself

Delafruita:
there is no concrete basis for saying Mark was the first to be written.theologians and historians just believe that Mark was the shortest and the others were developed from Mark and embellished

I said 'it is said to' Understand me?

mkmyers45: I said 'it is said to' Understand me?

hmmm

Delafruita:
hmmm

You sometimes write what is appealing abi?

mkmyers45: You sometimes write what is appealing abi?

lol.hunger seems to be causing some serious dysfunction in my sight,occular and motor functions.

Delafruita:
lol.hunger seems to be causing some serious dysfunction in my sight,occular and motor functions.

He he

Delafruita:
there is no concrete basis for saying Mark was the first to be written.theologians and historians just believe that Mark was the shortest and the others were developed from Mark and embellished

Actually, the oldest manuscripts of the new testament found is the gospel of Mark so they kinda agree it was the first. Professor Bart Ehrman explains this clearly in his book "Forged. Writing in the name of God- why the bible's authors are not who we think they are".

@topic
The easiest way to look at this is 90% (or more) of the people in that era where illiterates and couldn't read or write. Jesus picked his disciples from the low class (fishermen and the lot) and they definitely weren't among the elite that could read and write. So it is safe to say Mark, Matthew and John didn't write those books

Secondly, Jesus and his mates spoke Aramaic while these gospels were written in Greek. So who ever wrote them must have been a Greek speaking elite probably leaving outside of Palestine who could read and write 40 or 50years later.

It is difficult to know who exactly wrote them since misrepresentation or forgery was very popular at the time. The Greek called these sort of books Sudos and Nothos (lie and bastard). Generally the authors of these books are anonymous but later people reading them decided to attribute them to Matthew, Mark and the rest of them. "Gospel according to Mark".

St Luke on the other hand still runs in the lines of the rest of them, "Gospel according to Luke". From that, if Luke didn't write that gospel, then chances are slim he wrote acts of the apostles neither. Although they still agree that who ever wrote Luke was the same person to write Acts

People rather agree that these books are a collection of memories and stories being circulated around the period (basically like folklore). Until someone who could read and write put them together. How then can we trust their authenticity and accuracy? hmmmm


Pushing this forward beyond the gospels/epistles you proposed, we can go one step further and talk about the writings of St Paul which clearly show Forgery.

Scholars have agreed collectively that Paul almost certainly wrote seven out of the 13 gospels attributed to him. They've done this by studying closely the style of writing, coherence, vocabulary, historical situation and they all represent the same theological view, and they are;

- Romans
- 1st Corinthians
- 2nd Corinthians
- Galatians
- Philemon
- Philippians
- 1st Thessalonians

the fake Pauline epistles will include;

- 1st Timothy
- 2nd Timothy
- Titus

- 2nd Thessalonians
- Ephesians
- Colossians


It is possible that two different people wrote them in the fake group I presented above.

Problem is, the New testament is plagued with these sort of misrepresentations or forgery so much so that the motive of these authors cannot be accurately placed.

The sad part of all this is: The part of the bible where "Paul" had said women should be silent in the church. The passages of the bible that say this and attribute them to Paul are actually fake and not written by him. Which is sad when you look at the way the church today treats women. Catholic church for example base their idea of not having a female priest on these passages. Now is this a one of thing or is the entire bible composed in this manner? No one can put a foot down and say this for certain, but you can draw your own conclusion from these

area_boy

@Area_boy, @Delafruita,
If indeed the oldest manuscript is Mark, how does that automatically translate to the idea that Mark was indeed the first account? Yes, the book Mark could be the oldest dated surviving manuscript but how have you guys and the "academics/historians" assumed that it was an original script rather than a copy? since the only way we an categorically state that it was oldest is if we have proof that this book itself and the others are absolute originals. So to draw such huge conclusions through comparing one copy of Mark to other copies of Mathew, Luke & John simply defeats all credibility, and virtually all academics/historians(whom you choose to believe hook, line and sinker) are guilty of this folly, all based on theory and biases which they sell to us as iron-cast facts. But the logic just does not add-up.

I have watched this Professor Bart Ehrman on youtube give his lectures and arguments. Since forgery was a booming industry in those days of early christianity, then it is likely that the christian scripts were forged too, but that is not a sound reason to say that these book were not written by peter and his cohorts simply on the basis that they were "unlearned"(another assumption, but let's just go by that line of thought). Have you not considered that an apostle could dictate these letters/scripts to one of their numerous educated converts, does that not validate the truth and originality of such scripts being written at the authority and direction of such an apostle who dictates them and therefore should be rightly attributed to them? Does goodluck Jonathan personally write all his correspondents or does he dictate/delegate to his scribes? where these apostles themselves not figures of authority in christianity? These academics whom you revere and swear by cannot just fabricate "facts" and expect us all to swallow them(though most people would, but that's human nature, we worship titles) simple because they have an office in a university.

And on this question of Paul never saying that "women should keep quiet in church" where did you draw your conclusions from? How do you know paul did not write those particular passages? is there any evidence that these passages have been inserted by somebody else? as in the case of 1 John 5:7? Please let us know of these "facts" instead of making a mockery of your knowledge and contributions, or if this opinion of yours is based on some logic, then please let us know.

HumbledbYGrace: An argument rose @ school and Iam still confused.Who wrote the first three gospels?
1.Matthew
2.Mark
3.John

And what makes them different from the Gospel of St Luke and the Acts of the Apostles?
Pls help with reference thank you

Isn't it time we stopped talking about who wrote some jewish books. We as africans should talk about our fading away traditions and cultures rather than argue over some books written by some jobless arabs.

okeyxyz: @Area_boy, @Delafruita,
If indeed the oldest manuscript is Mark, how does that automatically translate to the idea that Mark was indeed the first account? Yes, the book Mark could be the oldest dated surviving manuscript but how have you guys and the "academics/historians" assumed that it was an original script rather than a copy? since the only way we an categorically state that it was oldest is if we have proof that this book itself and the others are absolute originals. So to draw such huge conclusions through comparing one copy of Mark to other copies of Mathew, Luke & John simply defeats all credibility, and virtually all academics/historians(whom you choose to believe hook, line and sinker) are guilty of this folly, all based on theory and biases which they sell to us as iron-cast facts. But the logic just does not add-up.

Well, you miss the whole point of my write up. I'm not here to put my foot down and say for certain Mark was the first. I merely put forward a generally agreed position. This clearly comes from the fact that the other three gospels copied Mark and did a terrible Job at it. Read the 4 gospels horizontally and you'll make your own conclusion who came first and who copied who. By horizontal I mean read one story in Matthew, flip to Mark, Luke and John to read the same story. Repeat this for a number of accounts and I'm sure you can draw a reasonable conclusion for yourself.

okeyxyz:
I have watched this Professor Bart Ehrman on youtube give his lectures and arguments. Since forgery was a booming industry in those days of early christianity, then it is likely that the christian scripts were forged too, but that is not a sound reason to say that these book were not written by peter and his cohorts simply on the basis that they were "unlearned"(another assumption, but let's just go by that line of thought). Have you not considered that an apostle could dictate these letters/scripts to one of their numerous educated converts, does that not validate the truth and originality of such scripts being written at the authority and direction of such an apostle who dictates them and therefore should be rightly attributed to them? Does goodluck Jonathan personally write all his correspondents or does he dictate/delegate to his scribes? where these apostles themselves not figures of authority in christianity? These academics whom you revere and swear by cannot just fabricate "facts" and expect us all to swallow them(though most people would, but that's human nature, we worship titles) simple because they have an office in a university.

You see, what you've just suggested is the best argument out there concerning the authorship of these books. "Maybe they simply had a secretary to dictate to?", The only problem with this idea is that the illiterates where speaking Aramaic and not Greek where as these books are written in sound Greek. For someone to dictate and a secretary jot down, they would have to be speaking the same language (or else tonnes of other problems will pop up). Listen mate, all we can do here is make assumptions to whether or whether not these books are the way they claim to be. I'm not claiming certainty and will like it if no one else does claim that without concrete evidence.

okeyxyz:
And on this question of Paul never saying that "women should keep quiet in church" where did you draw your conclusions from? How do you know paul did not write those particular passages? is there any evidence that these passages have been inserted by somebody else? as in the case of 1 John 5:7? Please let us know of these "facts" instead of making a mockery of your knowledge and contributions, or if this opinion of yours is based on some logic, then please let us know.

you have gone too far to be talking about the trinity (another conversation for another day). Maybe read my text again and see how theologians and historians came to this conclusion that Paul didn't write all of the letters ascribed to him. The strict Misogynistic views of these books not written by Paul gives the man a bad name. Eg, Somewhere in 1st Timothy say "women would be saved by having children". This clearly gives women a back seat role in the movement of christianity. Will not go down well with a lot of women.

Area_boy:
You see, what you've just suggested is the best argument out there concerning the authorship of these books. "Maybe they simply had a secretary to dictate to?", The only problem with this idea is that the illiterates where speaking Aramaic and not Greek where as these books are written in sound Greek. For someone to dictate and a secretary jot down, they would have to be speaking the same language (or else tonnes of other problems will pop up). Listen mate, all we can do here is make assumptions to whether or whether not these books are the way they claim to be. I'm not claiming certainty and will like it if no one else does claim that without concrete evidence.

This line of reasoning is just fundamentally flawed. You see, if the letters of paul where to the churches within Israel, then we might be compelled to assume they communicated predominantly in Aramaic(even this line also has huge flaws, being that Isreal was under Roman rule and all nations & people were free to move about the Roman provinces). But the churches that these letters were addressed to were not in Israel: the church in Rome(Rome), the church in Corinth(in Greece), in Galatia(Turkey), in Thessalonica(Greece), Ephesus(Greece), Phillipi(Macedonia), Colossae(Turkey), etc, So how is it logical that they communicated in Aramaic? If Israel was a colonial/super power then it might make some sense that they spread the Aramaic or Hebrew language. But this was not the case, Israel has been conquered by one power after the other and naturally these foriegn languages would be the ones being propagated. So, for anybody, let alone an academic researcher like professor Barth Ehrman to insist that predominant language of communication amongsts the churches was Aramaic is just plain fabrication, with no sound logic to support it. The only thing he has going for him and upon which he asserts this theory is that all the first apostles where jews and therefore they must speak & write in Aramaic. Does this make sound sense? Definitely not. Another reason for him to think that Aramaic was the dorminant language of the church is that he'd assumed that christianity was a jewish religion, another epic fail, for we know that paul repeatedly stresses in his letters that christianity was given to and propergated by gentile nations(non-jews). So, this idea of Aramaic simply holds no water when subjected to critical analysis.

Area_boy:
Maybe read my text again and see how theologians and historians came to this conclusion that Paul didn't write all of the letters ascribed to him. The strict Misogynistic views of these books not written by Paul gives the man a bad name. Eg, Somewhere in 1st Timothy say "women would be saved by having children". This clearly gives women a back seat role in the movement of christianity. Will not go down well with a lot of women.

So the only reason you think Paul could not have written these passages is because of it's "sexist & misogynistic" views ehh? So christianity must now conform to and appease secular values? This is simply western culture and identity at play here. Most westerners in europe and america would identify themselves as christians yet they'd never opened the pages of a bible before, never been inside the four wall of a church(If they do at all, it's only on christmas & or easter) and think santa claus is referenced in the bible. They believe christianity is passed down from ancestory, so if their fore-fathers were christians, then they must be christian too. This is how they hijack christianity and distort it's doctrines into secular values by making women pastors & priests, by performing gay christian marriages, etc. The truth is this: christianity has never promised be one with our secular values, therfore you should not demand so of it, there's no doctrine with women pastors/priests, there's no gay christian marriages. Whether or not it seats well with anybody is not an issue, christianity is not a state mandate, you are not forced to participate, you don't need it to function as a citizen, so all these secular values do not apply. As far as we know, those passages were pauls decrees and has remained consistent in his different writings, whether or not you are happy with them.

okeyxyz:

This line of reasoning is just fundamentally flawed. You see, if the letters of paul where to the churches within Israel, then we might be compelled to assume they communicated predominantly in Aramaic(even this line also has huge flaws, being that Isreal was under Roman rule and all nations & people were free to move about the Roman provinces). But the churches that these letters were addressed to were not in Israel: the church in Rome(Rome), the church in Corinth(in Greece), in Galatia(Turkey), in Thessalonica(Greece), Ephesus(Greece), Phillipi(Macedonia), Colossae(Turkey), etc, So how is it logical that they communicated in Aramaic? If Israel was a colonial/super power then it might make some sense that they spread the Aramaic or Hebrew language. But this was not the case, Israel has been conquered by one power after the other and naturally these foriegn languages would be the ones being propagated. So, for anybody, let alone an academic researcher like professor Barth Ehrman to insist that predominant language of communication amongsts the churches was Aramaic is just plain fabrication, with no sound logic to support it . The only thing he has going for him and upon which he asserts this theory is that all the first apostles where jews and therefore they must speak & write in Aramaic. Does this make sound sense? Definitely not. Another reason for him to think that Aramaic was the dorminant language of the church is that he'd assumed that christianity was a jewish religion, another epic fail, for we know that paul repeatedly stresses in his letters that christianity was given to and propergated by gentile nations(non-jews). So, this idea of Aramaic simply holds no water when subjected to critical analysis.

You see the problem here? you keep drawing half conclusions rather than looking at the big picture and the possibilities that exists around it. The modern church as we know it only began to take shape after Emperor Constantine the great adopted Christianity as the religion of Rome. This was after he claimed he got a vision and took an oath with God to help him win the civil war which he did win. Everything else before this was merely a sect, so to claim that the Pauline letters where addressed to established churches at the time is a bit over ambitious in the claims department. It is safe to say Paul lived around the middle of the 1st century since he claimed to know Simon Peter personally and also the brother of Jesus (cant remember his name, James?). At this point, Numerous sects have developed in Palestine at the time and the Christian movement was just one of them.

Now on the Languages you proposed, Lets take a stroll down to your village and see how many people can write the local language they speak, Let alone speak English or further still write English? Same situation here. Yes the Roman empire must have imposed their language on the people there, that does not mean everyone could speak Roman (or Latin as it were). There is no record anywhere (in writing or archaeological) except in the gospels of Jesus and his followers which will lead you to safely say he was a "local champion" if you catch my drift. Neither he nor his disciples were among the Literate elite to write anything and since the language of that region was Aramaic, it is safe to say too that they could speak that and probably only that. Having most of the New testament written in Greek simply assumes that a literate person must have penned these stories down.

Paul on the other hand was not a disciple no, and even he was a so-called "Gentile" (Acts 22:28). Clearly He was actually an Elite and the bible records his story how he became a follower of Jesus' teachings. It is possible to see how Paul could probably speak and write Greek/Latin giving that nearly all the letters were sent to colonies of both empires. He wrote a number of books and was famous at the time as a front-line missionary while fraudsters wrote other books later and attributed them to him in order to gain acceptance. There is no doubt among scholars that he didn't write all of them so I don't see the point of our argument. maybe one of us has to learn Palaeography first before this.

Dealing with the bolded section in your write up, It is indeed silly to think that communication between these early churches was in Aramaic since that was largely a local language and Neither I nor Ehrman have claimed this. Communication must have been in Greek or similar as we can see clearly in the earliest manuscripts found for these letters.

okeyxyz:
So the only reason you think Paul could not have written these passages is because of it's "sexist & misogynistic" views ehh? So christianity must now conform to and appease secular values? This is simply western culture and identity at play here. Most westerners in europe and america would identify themselves as christians yet they'd never opened the pages of a bible before, never been inside the four wall of a church(If they do at all, it's only on christmas & or easter) and think santa claus is referenced in the bible. They believe christianity is passed down from ancestory, so if their fore-fathers were christians, then they must be christian too. This is how they hijack christianity and distort it's doctrines into secular values by making women pastors & priests, by performing gay christian marriages, etc. The truth is this: christianity has never promised be one with our secular values, therfore you should not demand so of it, there's no doctrine with women pastors/priests, there's no gay christian marriages. Whether or not it seats well with anybody is not an issue, christianity is not a state mandate, you are not forced to participate, you don't need it to function as a citizen, so all these secular values do not apply. As far as we know, those passages were pauls decrees and has remained consistent in his different writings, whether or not you are happy with them.

No! that's not the reason I think Paul didn't write those letters, neither did I suggest that in anyway. I merely pointed out a major flaw in the approach to the bible. Now I'll quote myself so you see how they came to this conclusion

Area_boy:
Scholars have agreed collectively that Paul almost certainly wrote seven out of the 13 gospels attributed to him. They've done this by studying closely the style of writing, coherence, vocabulary, historical situation and they all represent the same theological view, and they are;

You fail to realise that this same western culture was what preserved Christianity over centuries, Starting with Constantine the great as I pointed out earlier. It is their ability to distort the original meaning of the bible that managed to preserve it.


More importantly however, you probably need to read about the Protestant movement and see what exactly it is they were protesting against. Ask yourself why does the Anglican Church allow women as priests and Bishops?

Gay marriage on the other hand is another story. It is one of social pressure rather than a religious one. Personally I don't care if gays get married, If for anything I will support it when two people decide not to procreate and rather adopt a child. We have a population crises already for goodness sake, while people still procreate and loads of children are starving out there! it is messed up dude!

The authors of the gospels are unknown. . .Acutally most of the authors of the books in bible are unknown. . .From genesis to revelation. .

Thank u all for ur inputs and the arguments that helped us all to dig deeper into our religion.Someone said that we r worried about things that doesn't involve African cultures and the likes,brother/sister remember no nation deserved salvation or was favoured by God than Israel.The Jews were the beloved ones but Jesus Christ died for us and we are now in favour of God,all nations known as Gentiles.So rest assured u r included coz he died for u.
Another thing that startled me is gay marriages Gracious Lord have Mercy because that is against the law of Moses.Again Women Played a huge role in the Gospels and in Acts so its absurd to say there can't be christian woman leaders,if u read from Matthew to Acts u can come up with many names of Woman in the ministry of Christ.

But that's not my point,I found something interesting and I think its best if I share it with you,maybe you already know it but the word of God is never preached enough.

Here are my findingsplease read carefully with an open mind)

"Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the church in Rome. After their departure Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing those things which Peter had preached; and Luke, the attendant of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel which Paul had declared. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also reclined on his bosom, published his Gospel, while staying at Ephesus in Asia."

Again, in the same books [the Hypotyposeis], Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner: "The Gospels containing the genealogies [i.e. Matt and Luke], he says, were written first. The Gospel according to MARK had this occasion. (My comment: MARK was written before Luke) As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. But, last of all, JOHN, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel." This is the account of Clement.


Summary on the authorship of the Gospels from Case for Christ:

Bible scholars believe that the Gospels were written in the following order:

Mark - Matthew - Luke - John

They say this based on the observation that some material in Matthew and Luke may be copied from Mark....

Clement however, said that the order is:

Matthew - Luke - Mark - John

The authorship of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are not in dispute and confirmed by writing of early Church Fathers (bishops)

The authorship of John is uncertain, because there were 2 different John's - Papias mentioned "John the apostle" and "John the Elder" and it is not clear which John wrote the "Gospel of John".... However, from the way that the "Gospel of John" was written (it mentions that the Gospel was written by the disciple loved by Jesus), the gospel is attributed to "John the apostle".

So:

all 4 gospels were written by people who either witnessed the events first hand (Matthew and John) or by people that are intimately acquainted to people that witnessed the events first hand (Mark was a good friend of Peter and Luke is the "beloved physician" of Paul).

In other words: the event that they recorded are based on either direct or indirect eyewitness testimony

We can be assured that the information recorded in very accurate (or else they deliberately lied)


There are no competing authors

The lack of prominance of the first 3 authors substantiates the fact that they were the geniune authors:

Matthew was a hated tax collector

Mark was the travelmate of Peter and was not part of the original disciples of Jesus

Luke was the travelmate of Paul and was also not part of of the original disciples.

The reason that they are mostly be the genuine author is the following:

If you were gonna fabricate some gospel about Jesus, you would want prominent authors - like Peter to give it more "weight".

"Other" Gospels

If you think that there are only 4 Gospels were written, you are wrong.... There are many many more.

The are many apocryphal gospels that have been dated much later - they often carry "heavy weight" names, for example:

The Gospel of Thomas (Dated around 150 AD)

The Gospel of Peter (Dated around 130 AD)

These gospels are rejected by the Church leaders at that time (who were naturally the people with the right skill and knowledge to judge on this matter) as apocryphal (false teachings)

(See the Canon of the New Testament later for more details)

Just to give you a taste why these gospels by "famous" apostels were rejected:

Gospel of Thomas - Dated around 150 AD: click here

Gospel of Thomas, 13:

Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to something and tell me what I am like"

Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a just (righteous) messenger".

Gospel of Thomas, 114:

Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life"

Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male.... For every female who makes herself malewill enter the kingdom of Heaven"

Compare what you read in the gospel of Thomas to the 4 Gospels and you conclude that if the 4 Gospels report true facts, then the gospel of Thomas is either lying, or is an "interesting work by a novelist - writing from his/her imagination.

Gospel of Peter - Dated about 130 AD click here :

This gospel starts off very convincingly.... but when you reach about the end, when it tells the event of the resurrection, you start to suspect the author:

Verse 9:

... (3) and they (the soldiers who were guarding the tomb) saw the heaven opened and two men descending shining with a great light, and they drew near the tomb. (4) The stone which had been set on the door rolled away by itself and moved to one side, and the tomb was opened and both of the young men went in.

My comment: There were NO eyewitnesses to the resurrection. This must be fantasy... The fantasy gets even better:

Verse 10:

...they saw three men (the two men that went inside the tomb and the third is probably Jesus) come out of the tomb, tow of them sustaining the other one, and a cross following after them

My comment: Wait, it gets even better:

The head of the two they saw (the two angels) had heads that reached up to heaven, but the head of him that was led by them went beyong heaven

--- In other words: the reseurrected Jesus was HUGE....

First, no one was present when the stone was rolled away - certainly not Peter. The description of the stone rolling away must be from someone's imagination.

Second, the authentic Gospels never reported a cross following Jesus...

Third, the authentic Gospels tell us that the resurrected Jesus was as normal as He was before He was crucified. He was not HUGE with a head reaching beyond the heaven....

The early Church fathers were very careful on what to accept as "Gospel": one of the criteria was that the document must be written by someone who knew Jesus or someone who was a long time company with someone who knew Jesus

When were the Gospels written ?

The importance of dating ancient documents

Human memory fades and humans tends to make stories more fantastic than what they were

On the other hand, when an event is written down, the accuracy (truth) of the event is perserved longer because it is no longer depending on human memory

The length of time between the event and the date of the recording of the event is a very important measure for accuracy:

If the recording of the event is within one generation (about 70 yrs or so), then the recording is very accurate - because within one generation, hostile witnesses will testify against the writing and false writing will usually die away (poorly perserved)

Dating the Gospels: When were they written ?

The standard scholarly dating, even in very liberal circles (i.e., those that reject Christianity) is:

Mark was written around 70 AD

Matthew and Luke were written around 80 AD

John was written around 90 AD

There are evidence that all gospels were written before 70 AD, but even with such a liberal dating, all gospels are wriiten within the lifetime of various EYEWITTNESSES of the life of Jesus INCLUDING hostile ones

This fact is important - human nature being what it is - if false teaching about Jesus were going around (e.g., that Jesus' resurection was false), these hostile witnesses would make sure any false teaching were corrected

Can the Gospels contain Legends ?

Legends are untrue or unverifiable stories handed down from the pasts

It is common to beautify important historical events - so called legend development


Alexander died in 323 B.C. - so Plutarch wrote about Alexander about 400 years after the death of Alexander

Historians consider these work generally trustworthy

Later writings did emerge later and they contained legendary material

Legend material can develop when the account of the event is written down long after the event took place - typically more than 2 or 3 generations.

The Gospels were written within a very very shorter time after the happening of the events - 40 years or so after Jesus' death (compare that to the 400 years after Alexander's death when Alex's history was written down !)

Furthermore, because the Gospels were written within ONE generation, the hostile witnesses that witnessed the same events that the disciples were preaching were also alive and they can testify against the New Testament IF THE GOSPEL WAS FALSE.

Now:

There are NO HISTORICAL RECORDS found that indicate that the hostile witnesses testified that the gospel material was UNTRUE,

Instead, we DO find HISTORICAL RECORD where these hostile witnesses were trying to CREATE ALTERNATE EXPLANATIONS FOR THE (SAME) EVENTS REPORTED BY THE GOSPELS

Example: "The disciples stole the body" see Matthew.

This strongly support that the events reported in the Gospels are in fact the true and are NOT legends !!!

Hostile Testimony against the Bible:

Examples of hostile testimony can be found in the Gospel and other writings

Matthew reports that Jewish leaders trying to "explain away" the resurrection by saying that "the disciples stole the body" (see Matthew 28:13-15):

....they gave enough silver to the soldiers. saying: "Say that His disciples came by night and stole His body away while we slept.".... And taking the silver, they did as they were taught. And this saying was spread amongthe Jews until today.

What can we learn from this ?

That Jesus did die, was buried and his body is really gone.

What can we conclude what is happening back then:

Jesus' disciples were preaching that Jesus had resurrected. The Jewish leaders did not believe that Jesus was the resurrected Messiah.

All the Jewish leaders had to do to shut Jesus' disciples up was to produce Jesus' dead body and show it to the people.

Yet, they could not do that because they had a problem: the dead man's body is gone...

They had to "explain it away" - their explanation: Jesus' disciples stole the body....

Think ! Who do YOU believe ?

Does the story that the disciple stole the body make sense ?

What evidence do you have that they didn't steal Jesus' body ?

Let me tell you that we have historical evidence that many of Jesus' disciples die a horrible death because they refuse to preach a "different gospel" - there are written records that Paul and James (Jesus' brother) were persecuted.

I know of human nature: a human does not willingly (by one's own choice) give up one's life for a belief that he/she knows that it is a lie

Yes, there are people who gave up his/her life for a lie that he/she thought was true. These are person who have been fooled. But nobody, and I repeat: nobody will sacrifice his/her own life for a belief that he/she knows it is a lie.

So you may be thinking that Paul and James were fooled... Well, the problem is: they started the Christian relegion - see, nobody told them what to believe - they went out and told the people about Jesus having resurrected from the dead. Now, if the resurrection was a lie, then Paul and James would have invented this lie... Now do you think that a person would die for a lie that was invented by himself

Also, it is a basic fact that a dead person will normally remain dead. So, if you have seen someone die and later see that same person alive again (Paul and James said they did), then I can understand why one would rather die than to change one's believe - even under persecution (Paul and James got killed for their belief in Jesus)....

The Jewish Talmud and Josephus reported that Jesus used "sorcery" to lead people astray....

What can we learn from this ?

That Jesus did perform miracles....

Here is another example where the hostile witnesses DID NOT DENY the fact that Jesus performed many UNEXPLANABLE DEEDS

They can't explain the miraculous things that Jesus did, and instead of DENYING it the Jewish leaders "explained" it away (by saying that Jesus was a soccerrer rather than admitting that He was the Messiah (or even a prophet)).

Indications that the Gospels were written much earlier:

Jesus predicted that the Temple of Jerusalem will be destroyed and the Temple was indeed destroyed in 70 A.D. by the Romans.

The gospel writers would certainly include this historially important fact but did not - the reason they omitted it may be because the gospels were written before 70 A.D.

Acts was written by Luke after Luke has written the Gospel of Luke.

At the end of Acts, Luke describes Paul being in Rome under house arrest in 62 A.D. - and ends without telling us the fate of Paul

Paul was executed by Nero and Nero died in June 68 A.D.... so Paul was executed before that 68 A.D. - if Luke knew about his death, he would certainly wrote about it.

So Acts was probably written between 62 A.D. and 68 A.D, most likely in 62 A.D. when Paul was under house arrest (Luke was with him and he had time writing).

Since Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke before Acts, this gospel would be written before 60 A.D. - which is only about 30 years (a very short time !!!) after Christ's resurrection !

Even earlier documents: Paul's letters !!!

Paul's journey in Galatia and the Greek island did not leave behind many churches but - and probably his most important legacy - a large number of letters (that he wrote to the churches that he has established)

Dating Paul's letters:

The Gospels were all written after Paul's letters !

the Crucifixion occured around 30 A.D.

Paul's conversion occured around 32 A.D.

Paul's first meeting with the apostles in Jerusalem occured around 35 A.D. ( Acts 9:26)

Paul's ministry probably began in the 40's A.D.

Paul's letter were probably written in the 50's A.D.

Conclusion: Paul's letter were written in a very short 20 years after Christ's resurrection - within the lifetime of many many many eyewitnesses - favorable and unfavorable ones.

A VERY EARLY Christian Creeds in Paul's letter

All fundamental creeds of Christianity are confirmed in Paul's letters

Creed: "Jesus is (Son of) God" - (God, who has called you into fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ.... 1 Corinthians 1:9)

Creed: "Jesus died for our sins" - (For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Jesus died for our sins according to the Scriptures.... (1 Corinthians 15:3) )

Creed: "Jesus resurrected from the death" - (..., that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:3) )

An Interesting Point made by Craig Blomberg:

Paul's first meeting with the apostles in Jerusalem occured around 35 A.D. (after Paul met Jesus and got blind in Damascus)

Paul's letter to the Corinthians mentioned that "he received some teaching that he is passing on" (the teaching are the creeds in 1 Corinthians 15):

For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. Afterwards He was seen by over five hundred brothers at once, of whom the greater part remain until the present day, but also some fell asleep. Afterwards, He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. And last of all He was seen by me also.

So in 35 A.D. - only a 3 or 4 years after Christ's death and resurrection - when Paul spoke with Peter, he was told that "Christ died for our sins", "He was buried", "He rose again the third day" and "He was seen by Cephas....".

That is WAY TOO SHORT a time to form any legends !!!

Some other facts in support of the fact that the Gospels do NOT contain legends

The Gospels report the "ugliness" of their leaders

Suppose, just suppose that the Gospels were legends; suppose that the disciples were inventing a new religion....

What do you think they would do ??

THINK !

If you are gonna invent a new religion to ATTRACT a lot of people, you want the leaders of the new religion to be as immaculate/perfect as possible... (Who would want to follow a criminal or scumbag as a religious leader )

Take Peter for example - the leader of the disciples. Would Peter - being one of the main man of this newly invented religion - invent a gospel where he denies Jesus not once, not twice, but THREE TIMES ? Would Peter portraited himself as a COWARD in his own invented religion

Peter - the leader of the apostles and the most important pillar of the early Christian church - denied Jesus not once, but three times. The Gospels could have easily omitted this fact, but did not !

No man will die for his own lies

Most of the original Disciples of Jesus were persecuted to death. If they have invented this "gospel" themselves, they would know it is a lie. Human nature is such that:

Some man will die for the truth

Some man may even die for a lie invented by someone else

But NO man will die for a lie invented by himself!

mazaje: The authors of the gospels are unknown. . .Actually most of the authors of the books in bible are unknown. . .From genesis to revelation.

Thank You. This is the absolute truth.

mazaje: The authors of the gospels are unknown. . .Acutally most of the authors of the books in bible are unknown. . .From genesis to revelation. .

Then u have nothing to say because if u believe In God u would know wen to post and wen to just view the topic and passby

The Authorship of Gospel is and will forever unknown due to the nature of forgery in the 1 C.E

mkmyers45: The Authorship of Gospel is and will forever unknown due to the nature of forgery in the 1 C.E

nd u turn around

HumbledbYGrace: nd u turn around

Do you know of Gnosticsm and how scripture was vetted?

mkmyers45: Do you know of Gnosticsm and how scripture was vetted?

No

HumbledbYGrace: No

Ok i advise you read about Gnostic Books & Practices of 1-4 C.E

mkmyers45: Ok i advise you read about Gnostic Books & Practices of 1-4 C.E

No book does it for me than the bible,whoever wrote it made my life worth living because I believe that I will one day see the creator of the universe.


All sufficient sacrifice
So freely given
Such a price
Bought our redemption
Heaven's gates swing wide
I believe there is Power in
The name of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

HumbledbYGrace: No book does it for me than the bible,whoever wrote it made my life worth living because I believe that I will one day see the creator of the universe.


All sufficient sacrifice
So freely given
Such a price
Bought our redemption
Heaven's gates swing wide
I believe there is Power in
The name of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Ok

HumbledbYGrace: No book does it for me than the bible,whoever wrote it made my life worth living because I believe that I will one day see the creator of the universe.


All sufficient sacrifice
So freely given
Such a price
Bought our redemption
Heaven's gates swing wide
I believe there is Power in
The name of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Well, there are two sides to this statement:
1) If you are asking questions about authorship of the gospels and various books in the bible, then you have to look outside the bible for answers. Also you have to read both sides of the argument.
2) You can see the bible as the ultimate truth and hence not be interested in what other books have to say.

Both of these contradict themselves so you'll have to do one alone. From the topic, you seem to ask for answers and now you give sole "explanation" to the bible? hmmmm


From your write up earlier I may be forced to believe that you only read Lee Strobel's book "A case for Christ". Well, He is neither a historian nor a theologian but simply a journalist. His investigative approach can be biased in many ways and the book confirms this too.

Why not complete your investigation and reach an absolute knowledge on this topic. Trust me it should not affect your faith (William Craig knows all these but is still a Christian), you can always come up with other explanations to defend your faith

Area_boy:

Well, there are two sides to this statement:
1) If you are asking questions about authorship of the gospels and various books in the bible, then you have to look outside the bible for answers. Also you have to read both sides of the argument.
2) You can see the bible as the ultimate truth and hence not be interested in what other books have to say.

Both of these contradict themselves so you'll have to do one alone. From the topic, you seem to ask for answers and now you give sole "explanation" to the bible? hmmmm


From your write up earlier I may be forced to believe that you only read Lee Strobel's book "A case for Christ". Well, He is neither a historian nor a theologian but simply a journalist. His investigative approach can be biased in many ways and the book confirms this too.

Why not complete your investigation and reach an absolute knowledge on this topic. Trust me it should not affect your faith (William Craig knows all these but is still a Christian), you can always come up with other explanations to defend your faith

that was for an assignment @ school lol don't do that again

HumbledbYGrace: An argument rose @ school and Iam still confused.Who wrote the first three gospels?
1.Matthew
2.Mark
3.John

And what makes them different from the Gospel of St Luke and the Acts of the Apostles?
Pls help with reference thank you

The difference from my understanding was that Mattew mark ond John were among disciples of Christ but Luke was not among them , he was a convert of Paul. His accounts of Jesus were handed down to him

Joagbaje:

The difference from my understanding was that Mattew mark ond John were among disciples of Christ but Luke was not among them , he was a convert of Paul. His accounts of Jesus were handed down to him

thank u,instead of giving me historical books to go through,ur answer is very simple and short which is wat was needed