Life Of Jesus In The Gospels | How Can We Meet Jesus Through The Gospels? | Historical Jesus

[WordAloud]

Hi Everyone,

I wrote quite a long essay about this.

Here are extracts:

How Much In The Gospels Is Historical, And How Much Is Myth, Legend, Trope, Figurative Thinking?

It is difficult to say with certainty how much of the Gospels is historical and how much is myth, legend, trope, or figurative thinking. The Gospels were written many years after the events they describe, and they were written from the perspective of the early Christian community. This means that the Gospels may contain a mix of historical facts and interpretation, as well as elements of myth, legend, and figurative thinking.

That being said, many scholars believe that the Gospels contain a good deal of historical information. For example, the Gospels describe specific places and events, such as the places where Jesus preached and the events of his trial and Crucifixion. These details suggest that the writers of the Gospels had access to some historical information and were attempting to provide an accurate account of what happened.

On the other hand, the Gospels also contain elements that are not seen by all as historical, howsoever this goes to the root of the faith, such as the miracles performed by Jesus and the accounts of his resurrection. These may be seen as legends or myths that were added to the Gospels to help convey the message of the early Christian community.

The question of how much of the Gospels is historical and how much is myth, legend, or figurative thinking is complex. What is important is that we approach the Gospels with an open mind and a willingness to engage with the stories and teachings they contain. We are in the Gospels in conversation with God – and with the many people who have had such faith and conversations – as with historical Jesus.

Why Do The Gospels Say Were People Afraid Of Jesus?

There are several reasons why people may have been afraid of Jesus, according to the Gospels. One reason is that Jesus was a powerful and charismatic figure who challenged the religious and political authorities of his time. He spoke out against corruption and injustice, and he called on people to repent and turn to God. This type of behaviour was seen as threatening by those in positions of power, and they may have been afraid of losing their influence or authority.

Another reason is that Jesus performed many miracles, such as healing the sick and casting out demons. These miracles were seen as evidence of his divine power, and they may have made people afraid of him. Some people may have been afraid of being healed or possessed by Jesus, while others may have been afraid of what would happen if they did not believe in him.

Finally, some people may have been afraid of Jesus because of the prophecies and expectations of the coming of a messiah. The Jews of Jesus’ time were looking for a saviour who would deliver them from oppression and establish a kingdom of God on earth. When Jesus arrived on the scene, he may have been seen as a threat to the status quo, and some people may have been afraid of what he might do.

Might The Fear Be Related To The Fear Of God – The Injunction To Fear God?

Yes, it is possible that the fear of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels may be related to the fear of God. In the Old Testament, the fear of God is often used to describe a deep reverence and awe for God, as well as a sense of humility and obedience in the face of his greatness. This fear of God is seen as a positive and necessary quality for a faithful believer, and it is often linked to the idea of fearing God’s punishment or judgement.

In the New Testament, the fear of God is also mentioned, but it is often portrayed in a more positive light. For example, in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus tells his followers not to be afraid of those who can only kill the body, but to fear God, who can destroy both body and soul (Luke 12:4-5). This suggests that the fear of God is not just about punishment, but about a deep respect for God’s power and authority.

Given this understanding of the fear of God, it is possible that the fear of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels may be related to the fear of God. Some people may have been afraid of Jesus because they saw him as a powerful and divine figure, and they may have feared his authority and judgement. At the same time, other people may have feared Jesus because they did not understand or believe in his message, and they may have been afraid of what he might do or say. Ultimately, the fear of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels may have been a complex and varied response to his ministry and teachings.

There is a fair bit more. The original essay is here on my site: The Life Of Jesus In The Gospels | How Can We Meet Jesus Through The Gospels? | Historical Jesus | Jesus Through Faith | Audio KJV | King James Audio Bible – Listen To the Bible! | King James Audio Bible | KJV | King James Version

I'm just trying to simplify things a little for myself.

At least as a step before totally wallowing at a new level in the Bible and particularly the Gospels.

Peace and love.

 

[Euthymios]

Hi Everyone,

I wrote quite a long essay about this.

Here are extracts:

How Much In The Gospels Is Historical, And How Much Is Myth, Legend, Trope, Figurative Thinking?

It is difficult to say with certainty how much of the Gospels is historical and how much is myth, legend, trope, or figurative thinking. The Gospels were written many years after the events they describe, and they were written from the perspective of the early Christian community. This means that the Gospels may contain a mix of historical facts and interpretation, as well as elements of myth, legend, and figurative thinking.

That being said, many scholars believe that the Gospels contain a good deal of historical information. For example, the Gospels describe specific places and events, such as the places where Jesus preached and the events of his trial and Crucifixion. These details suggest that the writers of the Gospels had access to some historical information and were attempting to provide an accurate account of what happened.

On the other hand, the Gospels also contain elements that are not seen by all as historical, howsoever this goes to the root of the faith, such as the miracles performed by Jesus and the accounts of his resurrection. These may be seen as legends or myths that were added to the Gospels to help convey the message of the early Christian community.

The question of how much of the Gospels is historical and how much is myth, legend, or figurative thinking is complex. What is important is that we approach the Gospels with an open mind and a willingness to engage with the stories and teachings they contain. We are in the Gospels in conversation with God – and with the many people who have had such faith and conversations – as with historical Jesus.

Why Do The Gospels Say Were People Afraid Of Jesus?

There are several reasons why people may have been afraid of Jesus, according to the Gospels. One reason is that Jesus was a powerful and charismatic figure who challenged the religious and political authorities of his time. He spoke out against corruption and injustice, and he called on people to repent and turn to God. This type of behaviour was seen as threatening by those in positions of power, and they may have been afraid of losing their influence or authority.

Another reason is that Jesus performed many miracles, such as healing the sick and casting out demons. These miracles were seen as evidence of his divine power, and they may have made people afraid of him. Some people may have been afraid of being healed or possessed by Jesus, while others may have been afraid of what would happen if they did not believe in him.

Finally, some people may have been afraid of Jesus because of the prophecies and expectations of the coming of a messiah. The Jews of Jesus’ time were looking for a saviour who would deliver them from oppression and establish a kingdom of God on earth. When Jesus arrived on the scene, he may have been seen as a threat to the status quo, and some people may have been afraid of what he might do.

Might The Fear Be Related To The Fear Of God – The Injunction To Fear God?

Yes, it is possible that the fear of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels may be related to the fear of God. In the Old Testament, the fear of God is often used to describe a deep reverence and awe for God, as well as a sense of humility and obedience in the face of his greatness. This fear of God is seen as a positive and necessary quality for a faithful believer, and it is often linked to the idea of fearing God’s punishment or judgement.

In the New Testament, the fear of God is also mentioned, but it is often portrayed in a more positive light. For example, in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus tells his followers not to be afraid of those who can only kill the body, but to fear God, who can destroy both body and soul (Luke 12:4-5). This suggests that the fear of God is not just about punishment, but about a deep respect for God’s power and authority.

Given this understanding of the fear of God, it is possible that the fear of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels may be related to the fear of God. Some people may have been afraid of Jesus because they saw him as a powerful and divine figure, and they may have feared his authority and judgement. At the same time, other people may have feared Jesus because they did not understand or believe in his message, and they may have been afraid of what he might do or say. Ultimately, the fear of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels may have been a complex and varied response to his ministry and teachings.

There is a fair bit more. The original essay is here on my site: The Life Of Jesus In The Gospels | How Can We Meet Jesus Through The Gospels? | Historical Jesus | Jesus Through Faith | Audio KJV | King James Audio Bible – Listen To the Bible! | King James Audio Bible | KJV | King James Version

I'm just trying to simplify things a little for myself.

At least as a step before totally wallowing at a new level in the Bible and particularly the Gospels.

Peace and love.

WordAloud stated: "The Gospels were written many years after the events they describe, and they were written from the perspective of the early Christian community."

My Response: Actually, they were written quit close to the events, compared to other ancient biographies, like those belonging to Alexander the Great and Buddha. Plutarch was the greatest of ancient biographers. He wrote on Caesar, Cicero, Brutus, Antony (+ 140 yrs). Theseus (+ 1,000 yrs). Romulus (+ 800 yrs). The gospels are written 20 to 65 years of Jesus' life. Eyewitnesses were still alive. Memory is generally reliable. The disciples heard Jesus' teachings over and over again, and they taught the message over and over again. Teaching is the best way to learn.

But "when" the gospels were written is not important. The important thing is "who" they were written by. Namely, eyewitnesses of Christ, and people who knew the eyewitnesses.

Bultmann's old hypothesis of the gospels as myth is a thoroughly dead thesis among contemporary New Testament scholars. The majority view today, even among liberal New Testament scholars, is that the gospels are in the genre of Graeco-Roman biography and history. The British New Testament scholar James Dunn states that the view that the Jesus of the Gospels is a myth is a thoroughly dead thesis. (see Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus in Reconciliation and Hope. New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology Presented to L.L. Morris on his 60th Birthday. Robert Banks, ed., Carlisle: The Paternoster Press, pp. 125–141, Citing G. A. Wells (The Jesus of the Early Christians (1971).

A few quotes from scholars should help.

Edwin Judge, of Ancient History Research Centre, Macquarie University: “An ancient historian has no problem seeing the phenomenon of Jesus as an historical one. His many surprising aspects only help anchor him in history. Myth and legend would have created a more predictable figure. The writings that sprang up about Jesus also reveal to us a movement of thought and an experience of life so unusual that something much more substantial than the imagination is needed to explain it.” (the Foreword to the truth about Jesus by P Barnett).

J Paget, of Cambridge University: “…. a growing conviction among many scholars that the Gospels tell us more about Jesus and his aims than we had previously thought …. subsequent Christianity may be in greater continuity with Jesus than was previously thought.” (The Cambridge Companion to Jesus).

Graham Stanton, of Cambridge University: “Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically.” (in The Gospels and Jesus).

Recommended Books

The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, by Craig Blomberg;
The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel, by Craig Blomberg.

 

[WordAloud]

WordAloud stated: "The Gospels were written many years after the events they describe, and they were written from the perspective of the early Christian community."

My Response: Actually, they were written quit close to the events, compared to other ancient biographies, like those belonging to Alexander the Great and Buddha. Plutarch was the greatest of ancient biographers. He wrote on Caesar, Cicero, Brutus, Antony (+ 140 yrs). Theseus (+ 1,000 yrs). Romulus (+ 800 yrs). The gospels are written 20 to 65 years of Jesus' life. Eyewitnesses were still alive. Memory is generally reliable. The disciples heard Jesus' teachings over and over again, and they taught the message over and over again. Teaching is the best way to learn.

But "when" the gospels were written is not important. The important thing is "who" they were written by. Namely, eyewitnesses of Christ, and people who knew the eyewitnesses.

Bultmann's old hypothesis of the gospels as myth is a thoroughly dead thesis among contemporary New Testament scholars. The majority view today, even among liberal New Testament scholars, is that the gospels are in the genre of Graeco-Roman biography and history. The British New Testament scholar James Dunn states that the view that the Jesus of the Gospels is a myth is a thoroughly dead thesis. (see Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus in Reconciliation and Hope. New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology Presented to L.L. Morris on his 60th Birthday. Robert Banks, ed., Carlisle: The Paternoster Press, pp. 125–141, Citing G. A. Wells (The Jesus of the Early Christians (1971).

A few quotes from scholars should help.

Edwin Judge, of Ancient History Research Centre, Macquarie University: “An ancient historian has no problem seeing the phenomenon of Jesus as an historical one. His many surprising aspects only help anchor him in history. Myth and legend would have created a more predictable figure. The writings that sprang up about Jesus also reveal to us a movement of thought and an experience of life so unusual that something much more substantial than the imagination is needed to explain it.” (the Foreword to the truth about Jesus by P Barnett).

J Paget, of Cambridge University: “…. a growing conviction among many scholars that the Gospels tell us more about Jesus and his aims than we had previously thought …. subsequent Christianity may be in greater continuity with Jesus than was previously thought.” (The Cambridge Companion to Jesus).

Graham Stanton, of Cambridge University: “Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically.” (in The Gospels and Jesus).

Recommended Books

The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, by Craig Blomberg;
The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel, by Craig Blomberg.

Thank you for your considered and informative input. Perhaps by 'many years' I was being vague. 20-65 years does indeed fall within a largely agreed range - howsoever there are views (perfectly scholarly) as to a longer time-frame.

I query your statement that human memory is reliable. That is quite frequently demonstrably not the case.

I also suggest that it is self-evidently false that the author of Luke's Gospel knew eye-witnesses. This is self-evident in view of his pre-amble.

Matthew, similarly, is drawing on textual sources, namely the Gospel of Mark, who it is said might have heard the teachings of Peter, and the missing Gospel upon which he and Luke principally draw.

Irrespective up to a point of the timing, Matthew and Luke write at a significant remove from the historical Jesus.

Luke is quite explicit in his intention to provide an orderly account of the life of Jesus. The implication is clear: that the accounts he has at hand are disorderly. And it can be interesting to see what he includes and what he excludes in his orderly account.

A synoptic is quite useful in this respect.

I stand by what I have presented as a broadly non-controversial summary of the relationship between the Gospels as we have them and the historical Jesus.

This conversation is to my mind immensely valuable, as the Gospels are themselves a conversation - as is, indeed, the whole of the Bible.

This is one of the most essential ways in which we meet God.

 

[Euthymios]

Thank you for your considered and informative input. Perhaps by 'many years' I was being vague. 20-65 years does indeed fall within a largely agreed range - howsoever there are views (perfectly scholarly) as to a longer time-frame.

I query your statement that human memory is reliable. That is quite frequently demonstrably not the case.

I also suggest that it is self-evidently false that the author of Luke's Gospel knew eye-witnesses. This is self-evident in view of his pre-amble.

Matthew, similarly, is drawing on textual sources, namely the Gospel of Mark, who it is said might have heard the teachings of Peter, and the missing Gospel upon which he and Luke principally draw.

Irrespective up to a point of the timing, Matthew and Luke write at a significant remove from the historical Jesus.

Luke is quite explicit in his intention to provide an orderly account of the life of Jesus. The implication is clear: that the accounts he has at hand are disorderly. And it can be interesting to see what he includes and what he excludes in his orderly account.

A synoptic is quite useful in this respect.

I stand by what I have presented as a broadly non-controversial summary of the relationship between the Gospels as we have them and the historical Jesus.

This conversation is to my mind immensely valuable, as the Gospels are themselves a conversation - as is, indeed, the whole of the Bible.

This is one of the most essential ways in which we meet God.

I gave the majority view of Gospel authorship, but I don't deny that some have held to later dates. But as previously noted, the important thing is not when they were written, but by whom they were written. The majority view today among critical scholars is that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, or people who knew the eyewitnesses. Further, critical scholars today affirm 7 Pauline epistles (epistles written by Paul).

But for what it's worth, Bishop A.T. Robertson, a liberal New Testament scholar, dated the Gospels as early as 40-60. (Geisler, Systematic Theology, vol.1. p.131. Also see Robinson, Redating the New Testament). Recent research into the Dead Sea Scrolls has caused some scholars to date the Gospel of John before A.D. 70. (see Gutherie, New Testament Introduction: The Gospel and Acts, pp. 261-262).

Most scholars think that Luke got his information from Mark as his primary source, and supplements it. Luke also used Paul and other eyewitnesses. The Gospel of John is based on an eyewitness. Most scholars think the Gospel of Matthew used Mark, Q, and at least one other which may have been eyewitnesses. Most scholars also believe that the Gospel of Mark is based on eyewitness testimony. (Craig, On Guard, p. 222). Out of 207 scholars surveyed in English, from 1965 to the present, 61 percent hold that Mark dates to AD 70 or earlier. (source Josh Pelletier interview with Mike Licona).

Rudolph Pesch, a German expert on the Gospel of Mark believes that the passion narrative in Mark comes from a source dated to A.D. 37. (Craig, On Guard, p. 191).

Luke got his information from eyewitnesses. Luke 1:2: "eyewitnesses" (Greek, autoptai)= firsthand observers of the events. (Bauchum, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, p. 117).

"Most scholars have taken the view that Luke's preface as a whole belongs within the tradition of Greek historiography and for its first readers would serve to identity the genre of Luke's work as some kind of history." (Bauchum, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, p. 117).

Memory was more developed among first century Jews, and they had a strict system of checks and balances in the transmission of oral traditions. Matthew was a tax collector so probably good at keeping notes and details. Further, Christ promised to send the disciples the Holy Spirit, who would remind them of what he taught. (John 14:26).

Are you familiar with critically accepted Pre-Pauline creeds about Jesus with high christology embedded in the Biblical text from 30 A.D. to 55 A.D? This was even admitted by the liberal Rudolph Bultmann.

 

[WordAloud]

Thank you again. I shall take the time to read the sources you have suggested.

I suppose the main thing is that I experience a path to the historical Jesus, of whom I have no doubt, and there is a lot going on there narratologically speaking between me and God.

Also I should like to emphasise the Gospels and the Bible as a whole as conversation with God.

He came down to us and spoke with us in our own terms and according to ..... linguistic human frailty? (I lack the words.)

 

[Euthymios]

Thank you again. I shall take the time to read the sources you have suggested.

I suppose the main thing is that I experience a path to the historical Jesus, of whom I have no doubt, and there is a lot going on there narratologically speaking between me and God.

Also I should like to emphasise the Gospels and the Bible as a whole as conversation with God.

He came down to us and spoke with us in our own terms and according to ..... linguistic human frailty? (I lack the words.)

Critical scholars (Christian, Jewish, Atheist, Agnostic, Liberal) grant seven epistles as authored by Paul (they are Pauline): Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon.

Using the data granted by these scholars, we can build a case for the resurrection of Christ. This is just part of the case, using the data from the epistle of Galatians.

In the genuinely Pauline epistle to the Galatians, Paul states in chapter 1:18-19 that he spent 15 days with Peter, and met James, who he called "the Lord's brother." In Galatians 1:18 Paul writes, "...I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted [historesai] with Peter..." The Greek word historesai means to inquire, investigate, examine, or ask questions of. The root word for historesai is histor, from which we get the word history. In Galatians 2:1, Paul states that after fourteen years he went back to Jerusalem. In Galatians 2:9 Paul states that James, Peter and John gave him the right hand of fellowship. If anyone were in a position to know the truth about Christ, it is Peter, James, John and Paul. Further, St. Clement of Rome was a disciple of the Apostle Peter, and he certified Paul’s teaching in Clement’s epistle to Corinth. Additionally, Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John, and he certified Paul’s teaching in Polycarp’s epistle to the Philippians. This certification not only corroborates Paul’s belief in the historicity of Jesus, but also Paul’s belief in Jesus’ resurrection. Clement spoke of "the good apostles" (Peter and Paul). (1Clem. 5:3-6:1), and he called Paul, "the blessed Paul the apostle" (1Clem 47:1). Polycarp writes: "the blessed and glorious Paul...accurately and reliably taught the message concerning truth." (Poly, Phil. 3:2).

 

[Euthymios]

Critical scholars not only believe that Paul wrote First Corinthians, but they also believe that First Corinthians 15:1-3 is rooted in an Aramaic creed, dating from 1 to 5 years after the crucifixion.

1Corinthians 15:3-5: “ For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how 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 of Cephas, then of the twelve:”

(Earliest list of resurrection appearances. The New Testament scholar James Dunn says that this creed was probably in existence months after the crucifixion. The non-Christian Jewish scholar Pinches Lapide thinks that this text is the strongest evidence for the resurrection. He gives about nine evidences that this is a very early report from possibly a year after the crucifixion. (see "The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective”). Lapide said that this creed is so strong, it may be used as evidence of eyewitnesses. Lapide admits he is Jewish, but he believes Jesus was raised from the dead. The German critical and non-conservative historian Hans von Campenhausen said 1Cor. 15:3 and following gives you everything you can possibly ask for from an ancient historical text. (Habermas lecture at Purdue). The agnostic biblical scholar Howard Clark Kee said that the material of 1Cor. 15:3-7 is so early and historical, you can take it into a court of law and get a positive verdict (see “What Can We Know About Jesus”). The following New Testament scholars argue that the material of 1Cor. 15:3-7 goes back to 30 AD: Larry Hurtado, Richard Bauckham, James Dunn (Habermas lecture at Purdue). Dunn said that this material had to be credalized within six months of the crucifixion. (ibid). These same scholars also said that the earliest teaching about Jesus was deity and resurrection (ibid). Baucham says that the consensus of scholars today is that this material dates to 35 AD (ibid).

 

[WordAloud]

Critical scholars (Christian, Jewish, Atheist, Agnostic, Liberal) grant seven epistles as authored by Paul (they are Pauline): Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon.

Using the data granted by these scholars, we can build a case for the resurrection of Christ. This is just part of the case, using the data from the epistle of Galatians.

In the genuinely Pauline epistle to the Galatians, Paul states in chapter 1:18-19 that he spent 15 days with Peter, and met James, who he called "the Lord's brother." In Galatians 1:18 Paul writes, "...I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted [historesai] with Peter..." The Greek word historesai means to inquire, investigate, examine, or ask questions of. The root word for historesai is histor, from which we get the word history. In Galatians 2:1, Paul states that after fourteen years he went back to Jerusalem. In Galatians 2:9 Paul states that James, Peter and John gave him the right hand of fellowship. If anyone were in a position to know the truth about Christ, it is Peter, James, John and Paul. Further, St. Clement of Rome was a disciple of the Apostle Peter, and he certified Paul’s teaching in Clement’s epistle to Corinth. Additionally, Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John, and he certified Paul’s teaching in Polycarp’s epistle to the Philippians. This certification not only corroborates Paul’s belief in the historicity of Jesus, but also Paul’s belief in Jesus’ resurrection. Clement spoke of "the good apostles" (Peter and Paul). (1Clem. 5:3-6:1), and he called Paul, "the blessed Paul the apostle" (1Clem 47:1). Polycarp writes: "the blessed and glorious Paul...accurately and reliably taught the message concerning truth." (Poly, Phil. 3:2).

Yes indeed. This accords with what I have been taught - albeit the teacher expressed probabilities as to authenticity rather than certainty. He was a Dominican. Quite bright. And then there arises the argument for the primacy of Paul.... and so on.

Just to say, I am not doubting historicity. The main point really of the whole post - HISTORICAL JESUS - was to emphasize that so much of our means of access is through texts which are of their time. It is a radically different set of understandings shaping the narrative from the which we have now. It is 2000 years - when even the 1970s seem a world away. Real people - real human beings in history - wrote these histories. There are modes of literary expression which are hardly with us now.

I tried to make the account very basic. For myself, an important aspect of my faith is to recognize the historicity, and to see through such an I hope maybe slightly more clear understanding of and conversation with historical Jesus.

 

[Euthymios]

Yes indeed. This accords with what I have been taught - albeit the teacher expressed probabilities as to authenticity rather than certainty. He was a Dominican. Quite bright. And then there arises the argument for the primacy of Paul.... and so on.

Just to say, I am not doubting historicity. The main point really of the whole post - HISTORICAL JESUS - was to emphasize that so much of our means of access is through texts which are of their time. It is a radically different set of understandings shaping the narrative from the which we have now. It is 2000 years - when even the 1970s seem a world away. Real people - real human beings in history - wrote these histories. There are modes of literary expression which are hardly with us now.

I tried to make the account very basic. For myself, an important aspect of my faith is to recognize the historicity, and to see through such an I hope maybe slightly more clear understanding of and conversation with historical Jesus.

Today, we have the historical method so we know what is history in the ancient world.

I read your section on the Gospel of Mark. Here are some details about GMark that I would like to share.

The New Testament scholar William Lane Craig said that most scholars believe the Gospel of Mark is based on eyewitness testimony (Craig, On Guard, p. 222). Rudolph Pesch, a German expert on the Gospel of Mark believes that the passion narrative in Mark comes from a source dated to A.D. 37. (ibid, p. 191).

Most scholars think that Mark was written between 65 and 70. The earliest date is AD 33. Papias is a good argument for the early date of Mark's Gospel. He claims to have received information about Mark, and that he got his information from the Apostle Peter.

Plutarch is regarded as the finest biographer in antiquity. The best and earliest evidence we have that he wrote "The Lives" is the Lamprius Catalogue, which scholars date to no less than 100 years after he wrote, to 200 or even longer after he wrote. It's falsely attributed to his son. The evidence for the traditional authorship of Mark is much better than we have for Plutarch's "The Lives."

Patristic data says John Mark is the author of the Gospel of Mark. Many scholars also hold this view. No other person in history is named as the author. John is his Jewish name, Mark his Roman name. Mark as the author is supported by Papias, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Jerome. They also connect Mark with Peter. John Mark is mentioned in 1 Peter 5:13 as his son. Even if Peter didn't write 1 Peter, this verse shows a tradition connecting Peter and Mark. The Mark-Peter connection is also in Acts. Most scholars think that the Gospel of Mark was written from Rome. Mark gets his information from Peter. The majority of critical scholars hold to the traditional authorship view.

 

[WordAloud]

Thank you for this.

Certainly, what you have accords broadly with what I have been taught.

And indeed, that Mark was a follower of Jesus and the 12, and then followed and worked closely with Peter in Rome - well, it feels true.

I think by the time we come to Plutarch or Irenaeus that this is so long after the event as to constitute possibly more the history of history... Or perhaps the history of making histories - however we can express that.

If we accept a date of composition of, say, AD 60 - 69, that still is a lot of time after the event for the stories to take shape. I for, example, am 50; if asked to tell a tale of my late teenage years and early 20s, there might in all honesty be a range of interpretations applying - and indeed contemporaneous if-not-exactly-equivalents of the modalities of 2000 years ago.

If find this discussion fascinating. I believe there is a way through to approach knowledge of the historical Jesus. The terrain to navigate can be puzzling.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Disclaimer: I'm a Lutheran.

At the Gospel reading in the Divine Service we all rise to our feet, for the Master is speaking. And at the conclusion of the Gospel reading we all in one voice say, "Praise to You Lord Jesus Christ".

For here, in the Gospel reading, Christ is speaking to us. He is here, in our midst, speaking--and so we stand at attention for our Lord is speaking; and we praise Him, for He has spoken.

We are, quite literally, meeting Jesus here. He is actually, really, truly the One in our midst here.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Thank you for your considered and informative input. Perhaps by 'many years' I was being vague. 20-65 years does indeed fall within a largely agreed range - howsoever there are views (perfectly scholarly) as to a longer time-frame.

I query your statement that human memory is reliable. That is quite frequently demonstrably not the case.

I also suggest that it is self-evidently false that the author of Luke's Gospel knew eye-witnesses. This is self-evident in view of his pre-amble.

Matthew, similarly, is drawing on textual sources, namely the Gospel of Mark, who it is said might have heard the teachings of Peter, and the missing Gospel upon which he and Luke principally draw.

Irrespective up to a point of the timing, Matthew and Luke write at a significant remove from the historical Jesus.

Luke is quite explicit in his intention to provide an orderly account of the life of Jesus. The implication is clear: that the accounts he has at hand are disorderly. And it can be interesting to see what he includes and what he excludes in his orderly account.

A synoptic is quite useful in this respect.

I stand by what I have presented as a broadly non-controversial summary of the relationship between the Gospels as we have them and the historical Jesus.

This conversation is to my mind immensely valuable, as the Gospels are themselves a conversation - as is, indeed, the whole of the Bible.

This is one of the most essential ways in which we meet God.

I'm actually doing prep to teach a sunday school class on the four gospels. So much of what you guys are saying is true, but I'll throw this out: The catalyst for teaching the class was this: I decided several years ago that I no longer believe the English translations of the bible are "the" Word of God. Rather, they contain the word of God along with the words of men inspired by God. With that in mind, I read all four Gospels with the idea that anything "in red" IS, in fact, the word of God. So I read them as though there are no other new testament books, and from a "fresh" perspective, taking notes any time I saw something that was confusing or didn't "make sense" in one way or another. I also read with a view to the differences and similarities within the gospels. One of the more "obvious" things I learned was the concept of the first three being the Synoptic cospels and John standing alone.

I eventually picked up this book which is a fascinating rundown of the gospels. Amazon.com
I got it used for about $50 and well worth it.

BTW, I'm now reading through the letters to the churches, one per day, and it's as if I'm reading the bible for the first time. I now see Paul as a guy just like me and can grasp his "human reasoning and concerns" regarding what he's saying, and keep it in that perspective. He's not God, but he's definitely got more first hand knowledge and experience than I do, or any modern pastor for that matter. Lots of wisdom. But still, he's not God. Jesus IS God. I give his words more weight.

 

[WordAloud]

Disclaimer: I'm a Lutheran.

At the Gospel reading in the Divine Service we all rise to our feet, for the Master is speaking. And at the conclusion of the Gospel reading we all in one voice say, "Praise to You Lord Jesus Christ".

For here, in the Gospel reading, Christ is speaking to us. He is here, in our midst, speaking--and so we stand at attention for our Lord is speaking; and we praise Him, for He has spoken.

We are, quite literally, meeting Jesus here. He is actually, really, truly the One in our midst here.

-CryptoLutheran

Amen, brother.