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

[ebia]

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.

 

[ebia]

Hi
Conspiracy theories seem to propagate out there in our day and it seems some modern scholarship tends to be cynical about the truthfulness of the early Church fathers but I say 'innocent until proven a liar'. There's really no need not to believe Papias. We sometimes can forget the point here was to get that last year of Jesus' ministry correct so there's nothing wrong with going over the events as outlined by another Apostle. Of course Peter being an eyewitness where Matthew had not been with respect to some of these timeframes was exactly what he could give Mark, since Matthew came to the Lord late. So both some give and take were most likely happening here. Mark had much from the mouth of Peter, Paul had much from the apostles he was co ministering with, Matthew provided at minimum all the parables, teachings, debates that Jesus had taught in public, inside the group, as well as debates with the Pharisees and whatever else Matthew had in there - possibly the Hebrew or recently translated to Greek version was the complete version we also have. It does not matter! They all were trying to get the record correct as they all knew so they could hand it down to the generations. The point was there is a Biblical precedent of a ministry Paul was engaged in while awaiting sentencing in AD62 and he Timothy to bring both the Parchments as well as Mark along to engage with himself and Luke in what? It's really not a stretch when the timeframe for both Gospels fit and the evidences we have seem to pint in that general direction. Yes the Parchments could have been Matthew's Gospel and why not, if he and Luke were constructing a timeline of events around his Logia.

You can't have your cake and eat it; either Mark is Peter's version (as papias says) or its Matthew's.

 

[ebia]

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.

 

[John 1720]

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

 

[John 1720]

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

 

[ebia]

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

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.

 

[ebia]

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

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.

 

[John 1720]

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.

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.

And seeing the multitudes, He went up on a mountain, and when He was seated His disciples came to Him. Then He opened His mouth and taught them, saying:
“Blessed are the poor in spirit, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, For they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, For they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, For they shall be filled.
Blessed are the merciful, For they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,For they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

"You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men. You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven."

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."

"You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire. Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny."

"You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.
Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.’ But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one. You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away. You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect." 

"Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly. And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly. And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words."

"Therefore do not be like them. For your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him. In this manner, therefore, pray:
Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done On earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, As we forgive our debtors. And do not lead us into temptation, But deliver us from the evil one. For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.
For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."

"Moreover, when you fast, do not be like the hypocrites, with a sad countenance. For they disfigure their faces that they may appear to men to be fasting. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, so that you do not appear to men to be fasting, but to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly. "

"Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. The lamp of the body is the eye. If therefore your eye is good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in you is darkness, how great is that darkness! No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon."

"Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? Which of you by worrying can add one cubit to his stature?So why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; and yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Now if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? Therefore do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble."

"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces."

"Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him! Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets."

"Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them. Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ "

"Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall. "
And so it was, when Jesus had ended these sayings, that the people were astonished at His teaching, for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

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

 

[John 1720]

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

 

[The Conductor]

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.

 

[John 1720]

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

 

[ebia]

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.

 

[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.

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:

Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us (1), just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, (2) to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, (3) that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed

(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.

Matthew 24:35 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.
Luke 21:33 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.
Mark 13:31 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.
AND
Matthew 7:24-27 "Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.
But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall. For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels."

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.

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.

John 10:25 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness of Me.
John 10:37-38 "If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father [is] in Me, and I in Him."

John 12:47-48 "And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him--the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.


Jhn 14:10-11 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own [authority]; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. Believe Me that I [am] in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves. "

John 15:7 "If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you.

John 12:47-48 "And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him--the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.
John 14:24 "He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.

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

 

[John 1720]

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.

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.

And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?"

Peter said to Him, "From strangers."
Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are free."
"Nevertheless, lest we offend them, go to the sea, cast in a hook, and take the fish that comes up first. And when you have opened its mouth, you will find a piece of money; take that and give it to them for Me and you."

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:

Matthew 11:25 and Luke 10:21 At that time Jesus answered and said, "I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from [the] wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes.
Matthew 21:16 and said to Him, "Do You hear what these are saying?" And Jesus said to them, "Yes. Have you never read, 'Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants You have perfected praise'?"

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.

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

 

[SavedByGrace82]

I dont have read all the aswers in this thred, but I wanna share with you a lecture by Dr. Peter Williams, this lecture is about: "New Evidences the Gospels were Based on Eyewitness Accounts"

Lecture - Dr Peter Williams - New Evidences the Gospels were Based on Eyewitness Accounts - YouTube

What do you believe on this evidens?

God bless you all!

 

[John 1720]

I dont have read all the aswers in this thred, but I wanna share with you a lecture by Dr. Peter Williams, this lecture is about: "New Evidences the Gospels were Based on Eyewitness Accounts"

Lecture - Dr Peter Williams - New Evidences the Gospels were Based on Eyewitness Accounts - YouTube

What do you believe on this evidens?

God bless you all!

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.

 

[Norbert L]

This has been eating away at me so much lately:

Most everyone has come to the conclusion that the gospels were written about 50 years after Jesus death.. doesn't this mean that the writers were not eye witnesses of Jesus at all? Can't this have caused many false teachings based on illegitimate information written?

Were the writings possibly even a huge hoax?

I am a Christian but this has been causing me much doubt lately. Any replies are greatly appreciated. Thanks, God bless..

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.

 

[hedrick]

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.