• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Casing me doubt: the date of the writing of the gospels?

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
John 1720 said:
Hi Ebia,
Sure we do, they've been there all along. If we just count the parables, teaching, and debates that Matthew has, add his unique verses it accounts for 75% of his Gospel. Matthew is a sayings Gospel
Nah. Thomas or most reconstructions of Q are sayings collections. Matthew is firmly narrative.
 
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
You can't have your cake and eat it; either Mark is Peter's version (as papias says) or its Matthew's.
 
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
John 1720 said:
Like what? The simplest explanation is usually the best.

Like I've already outlined.

If you're going to date the gospel on that alone you need more than just "I think it's the simplest explanation" but not other possible explanations.
 
Upvote 0

John 1720

Harvest Worker
Site Supporter
Jan 26, 2013
1,017
447
Massachusetts
✟171,630.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Nah. Thomas or most reconstructions of Q are sayings collections. Matthew is firmly narrative.
Hi Ebia,
Happy Lord's day. So the Parables and Sermon on the mount couldn't have been considered "sayings of Jesus"? Now that's a stretch. I broke apart the Gospel of Matthew and just kept the parables, dialog and direct teachings he had with the disciples, as well as that which is uniquely Matthew such as the Geneology. It still was 75% the number of bytes of the original. Try it.
In Christ, John 1720
 
Upvote 0

John 1720

Harvest Worker
Site Supporter
Jan 26, 2013
1,017
447
Massachusetts
✟171,630.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Like I've already outlined.

If you're going to date the gospel on that alone you need more than just "I think it's the simplest explanation" but not other possible explanations.
Hi Ebia,
I see. Possibly what I need to say then is something like I've seen posted here a 100 times like, scholar so and so says this is the date. Then I can turn my brain off and be a bobble head Christian and put me model up on me shelf. I haven't heard much from opposing views except the so and so said or most scholars believe ... Well most scholars have a pretty terrible record on dating things when I study their history of dating over the last century - for one they are biased against prophecy so if we see Jesus predicting the fall of Jerusalem that had to be post AD 70. So what do these same scholars say about Isaiah 53 or Psalm 22 or any of the many prophetic verses we have illustrating the crucifixion of Jesus and His atonement centuries if not a milennia before it occurred? Perhaps they were written after His Passion eh? Oops those darn Dead Sea scrolls really have gotten in the way of me pet theories haven't they now?
Regards, John 1720
 
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens

Perhaps I misunderstood. What I was saying was that I don't think we could call the gospel we have "a sayings gospel". Of course one could extract a sayings gospel from it. But what you have is something substantially different. That's one of the big problems with 'Q' (or in a different way with Thomas); a sayings text inherently distorts what the words mean in their narrative context and is less Jewish.
 
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens

Poisoning the well.

There are plenty of scholars dating Matthew and Luke to post 70 ad who do not deny the possibility of prophesy. Fwiw I think that's a mistaken argument even if one does; there's nothing in Jesus's comment that requires more than exceptional insight.
 
Upvote 0

John 1720

Harvest Worker
Site Supporter
Jan 26, 2013
1,017
447
Massachusetts
✟171,630.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Hi Ebia,
Have you tried extracting out the texts that echo Mark and Luke yet? Frankly I'm quite amazed at how much it reflects a "sayings" of the Lord Gospel.

I really think the simple answer to Papias' claim that Matthew captured the sayings of Jesus is that profoundly we can still see it in the Greek version where it has been all along. But while I'm just attempting to make my point we can certainly agree to disagree and not belabor it.
In Christ, John 1720
 
Upvote 0

John 1720

Harvest Worker
Site Supporter
Jan 26, 2013
1,017
447
Massachusetts
✟171,630.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
On another note, it has been said that many of the sayings stated by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount are listed elsewhere in Mark and Luke. This has even been a problem for some but I think this would indicate that Matthew (at least the original Hebrew version) was more interested in communicating Christ's words and not so much time and place or putting his Gospel into a format that contained a running narrative with respect to time and place. I'm only stating this as a possibility that could match up Papias' claim. I still think we'll have to wait until te Hebrew version of Matthew turns up - and I do believe it will sooner or later.
In Christ, John 1720
 
Upvote 0

The Conductor

Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι
Mar 27, 2013
263
40
Canada
Visit site
✟15,721.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I'd like to point out that in Matthew 17, Jesus pays the temple tax for him and Peter only. Why? All the other disciples were under the age for paying the temple tax. Most of the eyewitnesses were much younger than Jesus.

Also, in Philippians 2, Paul quotes a hymn. Philippians is dated between 50 and 60 AD. If you read the hymn, you'll see all the essentials of Jesus' life. This song had to exist before Paul wrote the letter.

In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul describes the events of the Lord's Supper. Also between 50 and 60.
 
Upvote 0

John 1720

Harvest Worker
Site Supporter
Jan 26, 2013
1,017
447
Massachusetts
✟171,630.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
You can't have your cake and eat it; either Mark is Peter's version (as papias says) or its Matthew's.
Hi Ebia,
I think you must have misunderstood me at some point. I've always back Papias' claim that Peter was the voice behind Mark's Gospel. Don't know where the idea germinated that you thought I meant Matthew???
In Christ, John 1720
 
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
John 1720 said:
Hi Ebia,
I think you must have misunderstood me at some point. I've always back Papias' claim that Peter was the voice behind Mark's Gospel. Don't know where the idea germinated that you thought I meant Matthew???
In Christ, John 1720

You misunderstand the statement so ill reword it slighltly.

Mark is either telling Peter's version of the story or he (mark) is telling Matthew's version of the story. Ie. if papias is right mark cannot be copied from Matthew and so Matthew must be copied from Mark - and therefore must be later than Mark.
 
Upvote 0

John 1720

Harvest Worker
Site Supporter
Jan 26, 2013
1,017
447
Massachusetts
✟171,630.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Hi Ebia,
I think you misunderstood me. I was not stating that Mark's primary source was Matthew but have always held that it was as Papias claimed, from Peter. Since the evidence is overwhelming that both Mark, Luke and Paul were working on a ministry that required scrolls, as captured in his letter, I am proposing that there was information share also possibly a refinement. This more than likely would have included Matthew's "Sayings" Gospel in its original form. And why would they not use each other's information? If I was going to show a different perspective on Lincoln's murder I would use the wealth of material already published as well as any cache of old newspaper articles, letters, memoirs, etc to bring events into better focus. In this case you still have eyewitness testimony available and people who have heard the accounts of Jesus directly. Luke's Gospel sought to capture the history on the "Year of our Lord". Mark sought to capture Peter's witness. Now Peter would certainly have been aware of Matthew's record of the Lord's Words. It is therefore not improbable that in those areas of the Lord's Word, which Matthew so bountifully provided and perhaps that Peter only summarized gave greater context to Mark's and Luke's Gospel and accounts for similarities for as Luke says:
(1) implies many witnesses were involved in ensuring a full accounting of the Lord's ministry as well as His Words were documented. This to me seems to have been an era whereby the apostles knew this ministry was critical. While the 3 Synoptic Gospel differ in perspective they are unified in bringing the narrative and the witnesses of the Lord's mission and ministry to us. As the Lord said
(2) Show's the order of events and their historical context was primary for Luke, unlike the others in existence
(3) Theo-philus (in Greek: "God Lover") Not sure if this was a real person or addressed to those who love God and desire to keep His Word.

Later John, would record the years of Christ's baptizing ministry and His going up to the feasts in Jerusalem during that time period before declaring His "Year of the Lord Ministry" throughout Galilee and Judea. John also adds minute focus on the Passion week events and the Lord's Words and prayers. For John did not seek to rerecord the same events but expound on only some parts of the Synoptic Gospels that shed further light, as well as bring the sayings of Jesus recorded primarily in Matthew that were not captured into light. He too, then, saw the Words and Works of Jesus important to record for posterity; for His Words and Works, as the Lord Himself stated, are crucial to our faith.
Psalms 78:32 said:
In spite of this they still sinned, And did not believe in His wondrous works.
Just as the Israelites did not believe His wonderous works in the time of Moses, neither would they believe in Jesus either but would remain with hardened hearts in their unbelief and sin.

What I was saying is the narrative form of both Mark's and Luke's Gospel could have been overlayed (my supposition) over Matthew's sayings Gospel when they took the care, as Papias mentions, to translate it from the Hebrew to the Greek. Matthew's Gospel in the Greek was extremely popular among ancient Christians as evidenced by the number of remains from antiquity. As far as I'm aware we have no remains of the Hebraic form of his "Sayings" Gospel but I am proposing that it is self contained within the framework of the Greek version and surrounded by the narrative form of the other two Synoptic Gospels. It's merely a possibility of course but one that seems to makes sense in considering both the historical and literary witness together. And when you surround Matthew's words with either Mark or Luke to bring those words into narrative context it does seem to mesh. I don't expect you to agree but I just wanted to clarify my point to better understand what I am saying.

In Christ, John 1720
 
Upvote 0

John 1720

Harvest Worker
Site Supporter
Jan 26, 2013
1,017
447
Massachusetts
✟171,630.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution

Matthew Gospel chapter 17:24-28 said:
When they had come to Capernaum, those who received the [temple] tax came to Peter and said, "Does your Teacher not pay the [temple] tax?" He (Peter) said, "Yes."
Exodus 30:13, 14 and 2Chronicles 24:6, 9 shows that this was not a civil, but an ecclesiastical tax. This then would have been a voluntary tax – an expected contribution. In Peter's zealousness to show His Lord's great integrity he responds immediately without any theological reasoning as to what is being asked. It is to this the Lord applies a teaching and a lesson learned for both Peter and us.
Those in the family are exempt just as the sons and daughters of Solomon would have been exempt but the Lord did not want this to be a stumbling block for those men and gave the provision for both He and Peter.

So why only He and Peter and not the Lord's entire entourage? I do believe you have a point that the others may have been too young. They that received tribute money, were taking it for the maintenance and upkeep of the Temple. The sum required (voluntarily so) corresponded to the Jewish "half-shekel," and was expected of every male Jew of twenty years old and upward. As long as you were a male Jew who had had his bar mitzvah (remember Jesus was 12) you were a fully fledged man of the faith. However, it seems that the suggestion that everyone over the age of 20 pay was based on an assumption that a man under the age of 20 might not be financially independent enough to pay. I've often thought that the most of the apostles were in their teens, probably late teens but here we simply do not know who was with Jesus at the time. For instance could Matthew be a tax collector and still be under 20? Would Simon the Zealot, whose name implies, he upheld the traditions of the Law before following Jesus? But in consideration of your view, Jesus also says:

So I think there is a distinct possibility some of the apostles were below the age of twenty and this should not be problematic. I myself joined the military and was inducted in only 1 week from my high school graduation at the age of 17 and 1/2. Paul implies he was "brought up" at the feet of Gamaliel.
Paul said:
Act 22:3 "I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our fathers' law, and was zealous toward God as you all are today.
Therefore we should not consider that would be an anomaly for that day, nor our day for that matter. The possibility would also help to explain the reasonableness of John surviving into the reign of Trajan being a dozen or more years younger than Jesus at the time His ministry began
Thanks.
In Christ, John 1720
 
Upvote 0
Jan 28, 2011
422
57
Karlstad
✟15,952.00
Faith
Christian
Politics
US-Green
Reactions: John 1720
Upvote 0

John 1720

Harvest Worker
Site Supporter
Jan 26, 2013
1,017
447
Massachusetts
✟171,630.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Thanks, I enjoyed the video although the thank you comes 3 years later. I was out of pocket for a while and away from the forums but back again for a season.
Merry Christmas to you and your family.
 
Upvote 0

Norbert L

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mar 1, 2009
2,856
1,065
✟582,890.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
I hope you will find this lecture as fascinating as I did. It is a new argument for the authenticity of the gospels.
Edit: I just noticed the reply above mine. It seems like I'm not the only one who sees Dr. Williams as giving a creditable point.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,491
10,859
New Jersey
✟1,342,894.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I’m going to skip most of the responses, though I’ve read them. Addressing the OP:

Yes, the Gospels were written around 64 - 90 AD. So how about accuracy. We have some evidence:

* Comparison of the Gospels suggest that they aren’t word for word transcriptions. That’s not surprising. No iPhones to record, and no shorthand. There’s also reason to think that Jesus’ sayings were often organized by topic, and not chronologically.

* It’s very unlikely that any of the Gospels are eyewitness. However there’s an early tradition that Mark was associated with Peter, and thus that his Gospel is based at least in part on Peter’s teaching. Even critical scholars take that tradition seriously. While Matthew is almost certainly not a witness, it could be based in part on something written by a witness. But most of Matthew is based on either Mark or the sayings source that's shared with Luke, so it's unlikely that a lot of it is based on something else. Luke claims to have investigated. It's not entirely clear what that means, but he could have talked to witnesses or (given the late date) people who had heard them speak.

* While the Gospels were written in 64 - 90, most people think that Matthew and Luke are based on an earlier collection of teachings.

* Recent studies in transmission of stories in the Mideast suggest that sacred traditions can be transmitted pretty reliably.

Based on all of this, I’d say that Jesus’ teachings are fairly accurate, though certainly not word for word. It’s less clear that the situations in which the teachings are set is always historical.

Since Matthew and Luke seem to have taken the chronology of Holy Week from Mark, and he probably had Peter’s teachings, I’d assume that the Holy Week section is at least roughly accurate. A comparison between Mark and John will justify my use of “roughly".

It’s unlikely that the birth stories have much historical value. Mark doesn’t have them, and the stories are almost completely different.

Of course our earliest source is Paul. Paul wasn't a witness to Jesus' life, but in a few places he reports things that have been handed on to him. There's not a lot of detail, but it at least verifies the crucifixion and resurrection, and the Last Supper including the Words of Institution.

Incidentally, the very close match in Words of Institution between Paul and the Synoptics supports the concept that words could be passed on pretty accurately. I'm assuming that Paul and the Gospels are independent.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0