Where Did the 4 Gospels and Acts Come From?

[doubtingmerle]

In a previous thread there was some discussion on where the gospels came from. Who wrote them? When? What sources did they use?

I'll start with my views. I think Mark was first, writing about 70 AD. We don't know who he was or what his sources were. We don't know if we can trust him.

Note that throughout I will use the common names "Matthew", "Mark", "Luke", and "John" since we all recognize those names with the books. In reality we don't know who wrote any of these books.

Matthew rewrote Mark, adding a nativity story, a post-resurrection narrative, and a lot of teaching. The teaching included morality similar to the Greek Cynics, an emphasis on Judaism, and a harsh condemnation of those who didn't go along with him. He also offered an explanation for why the Son of Man had not come right away as Mark implies. Again, we don't know who Matthew was, or his sources. Probably he wrote sometime between 75 to 100 AD.

Luke, another anonymous writer, liked Matthew's concept, but restructured it per his ideas. He totally rebuilt the nativity and post-resurrection stories. He took out the distinctive Jewish flavor of Matthew, making his gospel more universal. He adds an introduction that makes it sound historical, and adds a lot of references to then current events. Personally I think he wrote after both Matthew and Josephus somewhere between 95 AD and 120 AD.

John completely rewrites the story, using Mark and Luke where needed. His story is all about belief and about fantastic claims by Jesus. Again, we don't know who wrote it, but he claims an unidentified disciple as a source. He probably wrote after Luke, perhaps 100 AD-130 AD.

Then there is Acts. The final compilation of Luke and Acts were probably by the same person, again unidentified. It was probably written 90 AD- 150 AD, but I think it was closer to 150 AD.

What do you think?

 

[-57]

Are you claiming the Gospels and Acts are not truth?
...just wondering.

 

[AV1611VET]

Where Did the 4 Gospels and Acts Come From?

Heaven.

Psalm 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

 

[redleghunter]

In a previous thread there was some discussion on where the gospels came from. Who wrote them? When? What sources did they use?

I'll start with my views. I think Mark was first, writing about 70 AD. We don't know who he was or what his sources were. We don't know if we can trust him.

Note that throughout I will use the common names "Matthew", "Mark", "Luke", and "John" since we all recognize those names with the books. In reality we don't know who wrote any of these books.

Matthew rewrote Mark, adding a nativity story, a post-resurrection narrative, and a lot of teaching. The teaching included morality similar to the Greek Cynics, an emphasis on Judaism, and a harsh condemnation of those who didn't go along with him. He also offered an explanation for why the Son of Man had not come right away as Mark implies. Again, we don't know who Matthew was, or his sources. Probably he wrote sometime between 75 to 100 AD.

Luke, another anonymous writer, liked Matthew's concept, but restructured it per his ideas. He totally rebuilt the nativity and post-resurrection stories. He took out the distinctive Jewish flavor of Matthew, making his gospel more universal. He adds an introduction that makes it sound historical, and adds a lot of references to then current events. Personally I think he wrote after both Matthew and Josephus somewhere between 95 AD and 120 AD.

John completely rewrites the story, using Mark and Luke where needed. His story is all about belief and about fantastic claims by Jesus. Again, we don't know who wrote it, but he claims an unidentified disciple as a source. He probably wrote after Luke, perhaps 100 AD-130 AD.

Then there is Acts. The final compilation of Luke and Acts were probably by the same person, again unidentified. It was probably written 90 AD- 150 AD, but I think it was closer to 150 AD.

What do you think?

Thank you for starting the thread. I will examine your propositions.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Are you claiming the Gospels and Acts are not truth?
...just wondering.

Some of the things in them may be true, but I think most of it is not.

 

[-57]

Some of the things in them may be true, but I think most of it is not.

I suppose that's why you're a humanist who feels they don't eed salvation from their sin.

 

[juvenissun]

In a previous thread there was some discussion on where the gospels came from. Who wrote them? When? What sources did they use?

I'll start with my views. I think Mark was first, writing about 70 AD. We don't know who he was or what his sources were. We don't know if we can trust him.

Note that throughout I will use the common names "Matthew", "Mark", "Luke", and "John" since we all recognize those names with the books. In reality we don't know who wrote any of these books.

Matthew rewrote Mark, adding a nativity story, a post-resurrection narrative, and a lot of teaching. The teaching included morality similar to the Greek Cynics, an emphasis on Judaism, and a harsh condemnation of those who didn't go along with him. He also offered an explanation for why the Son of Man had not come right away as Mark implies. Again, we don't know who Matthew was, or his sources. Probably he wrote sometime between 75 to 100 AD.

Luke, another anonymous writer, liked Matthew's concept, but restructured it per his ideas. He totally rebuilt the nativity and post-resurrection stories. He took out the distinctive Jewish flavor of Matthew, making his gospel more universal. He adds an introduction that makes it sound historical, and adds a lot of references to then current events. Personally I think he wrote after both Matthew and Josephus somewhere between 95 AD and 120 AD.

John completely rewrites the story, using Mark and Luke where needed. His story is all about belief and about fantastic claims by Jesus. Again, we don't know who wrote it, but he claims an unidentified disciple as a source. He probably wrote after Luke, perhaps 100 AD-130 AD.

Then there is Acts. The final compilation of Luke and Acts were probably by the same person, again unidentified. It was probably written 90 AD- 150 AD, but I think it was closer to 150 AD.

What do you think?

Probably.
Probably not.

 

[juvenissun]

How do you know that the mysterious power you feel is really the Holy Ghost and really telling you the truth?

For if this mysterious power is telling you to accept Mormonism, then many here what say you are not hearing the Holy Ghost.

The "mysterious power" tells you: Don't believe!
Isn't it?
If not, why don't you believe? You certainly do not know everything in order to decide.

 

[Wgw]

In a previous thread there was some discussion on where the gospels came from. Who wrote them? When? What sources did they use?

I'll start with my views. I think Mark was first, writing about 70 AD. We don't know who he was or what his sources were. We don't know if we can trust him.

Note that throughout I will use the common names "Matthew", "Mark", "Luke", and "John" since we all recognize those names with the books. In reality we don't know who wrote any of these books.

Matthew rewrote Mark, adding a nativity story, a post-resurrection narrative, and a lot of teaching. The teaching included morality similar to the Greek Cynics, an emphasis on Judaism, and a harsh condemnation of those who didn't go along with him. He also offered an explanation for why the Son of Man had not come right away as Mark implies. Again, we don't know who Matthew was, or his sources. Probably he wrote sometime between 75 to 100 AD.

Luke, another anonymous writer, liked Matthew's concept, but restructured it per his ideas. He totally rebuilt the nativity and post-resurrection stories. He took out the distinctive Jewish flavor of Matthew, making his gospel more universal. He adds an introduction that makes it sound historical, and adds a lot of references to then current events. Personally I think he wrote after both Matthew and Josephus somewhere between 95 AD and 120 AD.

John completely rewrites the story, using Mark and Luke where needed. His story is all about belief and about fantastic claims by Jesus. Again, we don't know who wrote it, but he claims an unidentified disciple as a source. He probably wrote after Luke, perhaps 100 AD-130 AD.

Then there is Acts. The final compilation of Luke and Acts were probably by the same person, again unidentified. It was probably written 90 AD- 150 AD, but I think it was closer to 150 AD.

What do you think?

Most scholars do not believe the Gospel of John to be a rewrite of the synoptics. There are multiple theories, for example, the two-source and three-source hypothesis, to explain the Synoptocs, and there is the "signs gospel" theory regarding John.

I myself regard Mark and Luke-Acts as being most likely the recording in Koine Greek of a Greco-Aramaic oral tradition, Matthew to be a very loose paraphrase of this tradition, plus a lost Aramaic Gospel which may have been the so-called Gospel of the Hebrews, and John to likewise be a Greek transcription of an oral tradition involving St. John the Apostle.

Some scholars regard the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas as being of great age and authority; I do not, in that the work we have is unambiguously Gnostic, and a third century Coptic translation at that, however, it is possible what we have represents a Gnostic substrate over a hypothetical lost "sayings gospel."

The other works of apocrypha are interesting but of dubious authenticity.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I don't have perfect knowledge that this mysterious power that convinces me is the Holy Ghost. I just believe it is. I believe it is from God. I believe that only good fruits(results) can be from God. I have many good fruits as a result of this power.
How do I know that these things are true? I don't have perfect knowledge but I am just convinced. I am convinced so strongly that I don't have any doubts it is true. Can I explain this? No, I can't.

OK, so you know the Holy Ghost is leading you to choose Mormonism. And what about those who think the Holy Ghost is leading them to condemn Mormonism? In response to this you write:

If you experienced this mysterious power which I believe is the Holy Ghost, you wouldn't care what they say. They can not convince, but this power can. I can't explain this.​

And so it goes on. Just the other day I had a fundamentalist say I needed to just believe fundamentalism and it would so change my life it would be obvious it is true. And here I find a Mormon saying not to believe him, for if I just believe in Mormonism it will so change my life that I will know it is true. If each knows the other is wrong, is it possible that both have an invalid argument?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Most scholars do not believe the Gospel of John to be a rewrite of the synoptics.

Its true that John is very different from the synoptics, but some things in John do appear to come from Mark and Luke. The story of the resurrected Jesus appearing in a room to the disciples in Luke and John are so close, one has to conclude John either knew of Luke or Luke's source. Also there are stories like the feeding of the five thousand and the whole passion narrative that have close parallels. But the bulk of John has very little in common with the others.

There are multiple theories, for example, the two-source and three-source hypothesis, to explain the Synoptocs

The two source hypothesis says that Matthew and Luke used a source Q in addition to Mark. The problem with this is that there are many places where Luke shows a knowledge of Matthew. So could he have used Matthew? This is often rejected, because that would mean he knew what Matthew wrote and didn't care if his gospel harmonized with Matthew. But could it be that he knew of Matthew, decided he could do better, and didn't bother to harmonize with Matthew where he chose to differ?

The other works of apocrypha are interesting but of dubious authenticity.

Good point. I hear there are about 40 different gospels written about Jesus. Most Christians regard every one to be bogus except for 4 (or 5 if they accept Thomas).

 

[Wgw]

Its true that John is very different from the synoptics, but some things in John do appear to come from Mark and Luke. The story of the resurrected Jesus appearing in a room to the disciples in Luke and John are so close, one has to conclude John either knew of Luke or Luke's source. Also there are stories like the feeding of the five thousand and the whole passion narrative that have close parallels. But the bulk of John has very little in common with the others.

More probably these aspects of John come from an independent common source, which I will refer to via a not entirely subtle pun as "X"

The two source hypothesis says that Matthew and Luke used a source Q in addition to Mark. The problem with this is that there are many places where Luke shows a knowledge of Matthew. So could he have used Matthew? This is often rejected, because that would mean he knew what Matthew wrote and didn't care if his gospel harmonized with Matthew. But could it be that he knew of Matthew, decided he could do better, and didn't bother to harmonize with Matthew where he chose to differ?

I have seen precisely the reverse argued; that the current Greek Gospel of Matthew was composed by someone with knowledge of Luke and the old Aramaic Matthew, and indeed Mark.

Good point. I hear there are about 40 different gospels written about Jesus. Most Christians regard every one to be bogus except for 4 (or 5 if they accept Thomas).

There are relatively few who accept Thomas, and if I had to guess, I would say at least half of them also accept other works of Gnostic apocrypha.

My own view of Thomas is based on the Patristic consensus that it represents a Manichaean forgery.

 

[-57]

This is what I believe.
I don't have perfect knowledge who wrote them. Anybody could write them. I also know that those books are copies of copies of some other copies.
But there is this mysterious power that convinces me that certain things are true. When I read the gospels many times this mysterious power convinces me that Jesus is the Christ. That he lived on earth and performed many miracles.
this power convinced me that Jesus resurrected and lives in heaven with His God and His Father.
This convincing power gives me hope that one day I will be resurrected, too, after I die.
this power convinces me that it is very important to have faith in Christ so I can follow Him. So I can become like Him.
I call this mysterious convincing power "the Holy Ghost".

If the Gospels are so convincing then why the need for Joseph Smith who was claimed to be a prophet sent by God, given golden plates, to restore the true Christian faith lost long ago due to a so-called “great apostasy.”

 

[AV1611VET]

If the Gospels are so convincing then why the need for Joseph Smith who was claimed to be a prophet sent by God, given golden plates, to restore the true Christian faith lost long ago due to a so-called “great apostasy.”

Since there were no more prophets after AD 96, I would say if anyone wants me to believe they (or whomever) was a prophet, I will -- a false prophet.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I have seen precisely the reverse argued; that the current Greek Gospel of Matthew was composed by someone with knowledge of Luke and the old Aramaic Matthew, and indeed Mark.

That is another possibility, but it is hard to believe that Matthew knew about Luke and ignored much of it. How can Matthew ignore Luke's opening where he says others have written the story, but that he, Luke, is writing the true scoop. It would seem that if one started from Luke and trusted Luke, then one should begin with an explanation of how this book either supplements Luke or overrides Luke.

The birth story in Matthew, for instance, seems more primitive than the one in Luke. If Matthew knew from Luke that the angel had talked to Mary, why does he begin with Joseph being confused about finding his girl friend pregnant? Didn't Mary and Joseph talk? If Mary had been told about this by an angel before she was pregnant, and was talking with her cousins about it, why didn't Joseph already know? If the angel had already appeared to Mary and announced the pregnancy, then Joseph would not be so much concerned about the pregnancy as he was about the story Mary told. For if your girl friend tells you an angel told her the Holy Spirit made her pregnant, then your primary concern is finding out if she is a whacko or if she is telling the truth. But in Matthew Joseph has no idea why his girl friend is pregnant until he dreams about an angel giving him an explanation. I am sorry, but if I was a young man who found out my girl friend was pregnant, and then dreamed that an angel told me that this was done by the Holy Spirit, I would hardly wake up saying, "Oh, that explains it!" Could Matthew not see how terrifying it would be for Mary to find herself pregnant without her consent, with the only assurance being that her boyfriend later says he dreamed it was the Holy Spirit that did this? Luke, to his credit, sees how Mary would feel, and rewrites the story so that God addressed her feelings before she even conceived.

So the story in Matthew seems more primitive. And it seems that Christians tend to agree, for the story you hear every Christmastime looks more like Luke than Matthew.

 

[-57]

Mary to find herself pregnant without her consent,

Your statement is pretty much unfair and unsupported that Mary became pregnant without her consent.

Luke informs us Mary gave her consent.
Luke 1:38 And Mary said, “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.

In the Gospel of Matthew we are given details....not as much as Luke provides...but still given details. The details provided by Matthew speak nothing of giving or not giving consent. To draw a conclusion that Mary didn't give consent from Matthews Gospel as you apparently have suggested is unfounded.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Your statement is pretty much unfair and unsupported that Mary became pregnant without her consent.

Luke informs us Mary gave her consent.
Luke 1:38 And Mary said, “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.

In the Gospel of Matthew we are given details....not as much as Luke provides...but still given details. The details provided by Matthew speak nothing of giving or not giving consent. To draw a conclusion that Mary didn't give consent from Matthews Gospel as you apparently have suggested is unfounded.

Matthew doesn't address Mary's concerns about the pregnancy at all. He addresses Joseph. In his gospel, Joseph finds Mary pregnant and does not know why. If an angel had previously told Mary as Luke says, then Joseph's question would have been whether to believe Mary, not "what the blank is going on here" as Matthew implies. Thus it appears to me that Matthew was not aware that Luke had thought this through and addressed Mary's concern.

It seems more likely that Matthew did not think of Mary's plight, rather than, having read of Mary's plight and solution in Luke, decided it wasn't important to mention that Mary had consented beforehand. His account is more primitive.

 

[-57]

Matthew doesn't address Mary's concerns about the pregnancy at all. He addresses Joseph. In his gospel, Joseph finds Mary pregnant and does not know why. If an angel had previously told Mary as Luke says, then Joseph's question would have been whether to believe Mary, not "what the blank is going on here" as Matthew implies. Thus it appears to me that Matthew was not aware that Luke had thought this through and addressed Mary's concern.

It seems more likely that Matthew did not think of Mary's plight, rather than, having read of Mary's plight and solution in Luke, decided it wasn't important to mention that Mary had consented beforehand. His account is more primitive.

Whether Matthews account is more primitive or not is of no issue.
From what I have learned is that Luke was a historian...dug out the details...probably in a later in life interview with Mary obtaining some of the finer details. Is this not allowed?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Whether Matthews account is more primitive or not is of no issue.
From what I have learned is that Luke was a historian...dug out the detail...probably in a later in life interview with Mary obtaining some of the finer details. Is this not allowed?

Read the context of this thread. I was responding to someone who said that Matthew wrote after Luke and used Luke as a source. You apparently agree with me that it makes more sense that Luke knew of Matthew and tried to add historical details, rather than Matthew starting from Luke and deliberating pulling out the history.

Whether Luke actually interviewed people to get the information he adds is unknown. He makes no claim as to what sources he consulted.

 

[Wgw]

That is another possibility, but it is hard to believe that Matthew knew about Luke and ignored much of it. How can Matthew ignore Luke's opening where he says others have written the story, but that he, Luke, is writing the true scoop. It would seem that if one started from Luke and trusted Luke, then one should begin with an explanation of how this book either supplements Luke or overrides Luke.

The birth story in Matthew, for instance, seems more primitive than the one in Luke. If Matthew knew from Luke that the angel had talked to Mary, why does he begin with Joseph being confused about finding his girl friend pregnant? Didn't Mary and Joseph talk? If Mary had been told about this by an angel before she was pregnant, and was talking with her cousins about it, why didn't Joseph already know? If the angel had already appeared to Mary and announced the pregnancy, then Joseph would not be so much concerned about the pregnancy as he was about the story Mary told. For if your girl friend tells you an angel told her the Holy Spirit made her pregnant, then your primary concern is finding out if she is a whacko or if she is telling the truth. But in Matthew Joseph has no idea why his girl friend is pregnant until he dreams about an angel giving him an explanation. I am sorry, but if I was a young man who found out my girl friend was pregnant, and then dreamed that an angel told me that this was done by the Holy Spirit, I would hardly wake up saying, "Oh, that explains it!" Could Matthew not see how terrifying it would be for Mary to find herself pregnant without her consent, with the only assurance being that her boyfriend later says he dreamed it was the Holy Spirit that did this? Luke, to his credit, sees how Mary would feel, and rewrites the story so that God addressed her feelings before she even conceived.

So the story in Matthew seems more primitive. And it seems that Christians tend to agree, for the story you hear every Christmastime looks more like Luke than Matthew.

Alas this is simply subjective higher criticism, and not terribly novel, original or interesting higher criticism at that. I as a general rule am not interested in mere opinions about the text.