Where Did the 4 Gospels and Acts Come From?

-57 said:

From the above...baptism saves no one.
...so baptize away...it's futile.

Click to expand...

What I wonder about is the Gospel of Marcion. The followers of Marcion were numerous and survived for 300 years. What happened to their manuscripts?

In 1881 Charles B. Waite[5] suggested that Marcion's Gospel may have preceded Luke's Gospel. John Knox in Marcion and the New Testament (1942) also defends this hypothesis. In the 2006 book Marcion and Luke-Acts: a defining struggle, Joseph B Tyson makes a case for not only Luke but also Acts (see Luke-Acts) being responses to Marcion rather than Marcion's gospel being a rewrite of Luke

Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Marcion

cloudyday2 said:

What I wonder about is the Gospel of Marcion. The followers of Marcion were numerous and survived for 300 years. What happened to their manuscripts?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Marcion

Click to expand...

It was merely an edited version of Luke. One can reconstruct it in part based on what Patristic sources say is missing. Boring stuff, however, unlike some of the Gnostic gospels.

Wgw said:

It was merely an edited version of Luke. One can reconstruct it in part based on what Patristic sources say is missing. Boring stuff, however, unlike some of the Gnostic gospels.

Click to expand...

There are several facts that make me very suspicious of the claim you stated:
- Acts and Luke appear to be written by the same person, but Acts is not part of Marcion's canon. Why wouldn't Acts be part of Marcion's canon? Why wouldn't Marcion edit Acts along with Luke? Apparently an early version of the Gospel of Luke existed before Acts existed.
- the Gospel of Luke used by Marcion included verses that contradicted Marcionism. Isn't that suspicious? Why edit a gospel and leave verses that are critical of your views?
- at the time, Marcion's followers accused the proto-orthodox of adding things to the Gospel of Luke to make it support the proto-orthodox beliefs. Adding is more common than deleting when groups tinker with religious texts. The original text is often considered sacred by both sides in a dispute, and the ordinary parishioners already know the stories from the original text by heart, so deleting the troublesome stories is not an option. Instead, new stories are inserted into the original text to "clarify" the theology. Often the new stories can change the meaning of the original stories so that they conform to the theology du jour. This is why the Bible seems to contain so many contradictions. This may also by why context is emphasized in understanding the Bible. The stories in isolation have their original meaning, but the stories in "context" have the new meaning that is more orthodox.

cloudyday2 said:

There are several facts that make me very suspicious of the claim you stated:
- Acts and Luke appear to be written by the same person, but Acts is not part of Marcion's canon. Why wouldn't Acts be part of Marcion's canon? Why wouldn't Marcion edit Acts along with Luke? Apparently an early version of the Gospel of Luke existed before Acts existed.
- the Gospel of Luke used by Marcion included verses that contradicted Marcionism. Isn't that suspicious? Why edit a gospel and leave verses that are critical of your views?
- at the time, Marcion's followers accused the proto-orthodox of adding things to the Gospel of Luke to make it support the proto-orthodox beliefs. Adding is more common than deleting when groups tinker with religious texts. The original text is often considered sacred by both sides in a dispute, and the ordinary parishioners already know the stories from the original text by heart, so deleting the troublesome stories is not an option. Instead, new stories are inserted into the original text to "clarify" the theology. Often the new stories can change the meaning of the original stories so that they conform to the theology du jour. This is why the Bible seems to contain so many contradictions. This may also by why context is emphasized in understanding the Bible. The stories in isolation have their original meaning, but the stories in "context" have the new meaning that is more orthodox.

Click to expand...

Interestingly I recall St. Irenaeus criticizing Marcion for his foolishness using roughly much of your argument.

Wgw said:

Interestingly I recall St. Irenaeus criticizing Marcion for his foolishness using roughly much of your argument.

Click to expand...

Probably Irenaeus was sharp enough to see the evidence but too naive to realize that his own proto-orthodox may have been doing the editing instead of the followers of Marcion.

cloudyday2 said:

Probably Irenaeus was sharp enough to see the evidence but too naive to realize that his own proto-orthodox may have been doing the editing instead of the followers of Marcion.

Click to expand...

Because we all know how evil those proto-Orthodox leaders were, manipulating the innocent, virtuous, peace-loving Pagan Emperors of Rome into feeding them to lions and all...

doubtingmerle said:

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?

Click to expand...

I would disagree with your datings, doubts about who the author was and also the necessity of Markan priority.

All the gospels were canonised based on their being based on their eyewitness testimony to the life of Christ by those closest to him. The church was in broad agreement about the authorship and dating of the 4 gospels as being within a generation after Christs Ascension. Matthews gospel as you say is more targetted towards Jewish people and was written by himself before he was martyred. Marks gospel is based on the testimony of Peter and is a no nonsense description of key events. It is very possible that being the shortest and most succinct it was the nest expression of the oral tradition all the synoptics shared in. Lukes gospel is based in part on the testimony of Mary hence the extra detail around the birth narratives. Johns gospel is the most mature reflection on the true nature of Jesus and his Revelation expounds even more on the glory of the Ascended and returning Christ. This fits since John died an old man in his bed and had the time to work a lot of the theological reflection through into a form that could be expressed. Also his extra revelation of Christ on Patmos shows in his style.

The SoP for this forum has been updated with the following guideline:

• Only Christian members (see our faith groups list) may defend the Christian faith against arguments and opposing viewpoints from non-Christian members.

doubtingmerle said:

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?

Click to expand...

I think your estimates for Luke-Acts are probably a bit "extreme", placing them so far into the 2nd century . Other than that I don't have too much to disagree with concerning your post.

-CryptoLutheran

FreeinChrist said:

The Book of Mormon plagerizes from the Bible and otherwise is filled with theology not consistent with Christianity.

But this thread is not about the Book of Mormon, and should not be derailed into a discussion of the BOM. The topic is in the OP - it is about the gospels in the Bible.

So let's keep it on topic, and not be derailed.

Click to expand...

You know what really makes me mad is when you claim pledgerism. It gives full credit from what it quotes and that is what it is doing is quoting so stop with the pledgerize garbage

fatboys said:

You know what really makes me mad is when you claim pledgerism. It gives full credit from what it quotes and that is what it is doing is quoting so stop with the pledgerize garbage

Click to expand...

QV please: The Book of Mormon and the King James Bible

AV1611VET said:

QV please: The Book of Mormon and the King James Bible

Click to expand...

It says it is the source not copied without noted quotes. To think that the source of the Book of Mormon is the KJV of the bible is so silly. If God is the source of truth and he created the world and the inhabitants on it would be give a different gospel to one people than another? There are ministers who use the Book of Mormon in their sermons without their congregations knowing it because it clarifys doctrine. These are ministers who have nothing to do with mormons

fatboys said:

To think that the source of the Book of Mormon is the KJV of the bible is so silly.

Click to expand...

I'll just settle for one copying from the other.

The technical term is: diabolical plagiarism.

Don't feel bad though, as scientists fall for it all the time.

fatboys said:

If God is the source of truth and he created the world and the inhabitants on it would be give a different gospel to one people than another?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're asking here.

God gives us the same Gospel to all creatures (people).

There's a cult that says an angel delivered another gospel to someone on plates of aurum, despite what the Bible says:

Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

fatboys said:

There are ministers who use the Book of Mormon in their sermons without their congregations knowing it because it clarifys doctrine. These are ministers who have nothing to do with mormons

Click to expand...

Not in my church.

And if so, are you sure it is to clarify doctrine? or clarify words?

AV1611VET said:

I'll just settle for one copying from the other.

The technical term is: diabolical plagiarism.

Don't feel bad though, as scientists fall for it all the time.I'm not sure what you're asking here.

God gives us the same Gospel to all creatures (people).

There's a cult that says an angel delivered another gospel to someone on plates of aurum, despite what the Bible says:

Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Not in my church.

And if so, are you sure it is to clarify doctrine? or clarify words?

Click to expand...

Let's suppose that what we are sYing is true. If God called a living breathing prophet to guide us through these last days before his Son's second return that we might be better prepared don't you just think that I his would be important?

fatboys said:

Let's suppose that what we are sYing is true. If God called a living breathing prophet to guide us through these last days before his Son's second return that we might be better prepared don't you just think that I his would be important?

Click to expand...

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hebrews 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

I think that OP has some interesting points however I would argue that the supposition of a late date may be ideologically motivated rather than particularly honest historiography. It is ideologically motivated in that it owes considerably to the source/form criticism of nineteenth century German higher criticism. While criticism isn't altogether bad, I think it's actually a very important subset of the way we approach data, however, I would argue that the nineteenth century German higher criticism, particularly the Left-Hegelian Tubingen school of bible studies, incorporated a specifically Romantic element of religious studies. This Romanticism was in fact a highly anti-Judaistic historiography, one can view this in the OT studies of De Wette all the way to Wellhausen, with the development of the Documentary Hypothesis and I would argue that one can see this in the assumptions behind New Testament source criticism. The assumptions are that the earliest Christian religion was of pristine form, inhabiting no ritual space nor incorporating any element of superstition or mythology, therefore the history of Christianity must portray its origin as that of a simple peasant movement of ideal religion, certainly not the mythological and ritualistic and legalistic framework of Judaism (read also Catholicism).

I think that in questioning these bare assumptions behind the dating of the New Testament one can posit, for scholarly, academic reasons, quite an early date for much of the NT, perhaps Hebrews and the Apocalypse may be the latest texts all written before the end of the first century. In terms of the Synoptic problem, I would personally say that we don't know what solutions can be postulated but rather than assuming the texts are separated by time I think it's more likely (given what we know of ancient texts) that the gospel traditions are separated more by space than by time. Furthermore, while everyone likes to suppose a 70CE date for Mark, given knowledge of the destruction of the Temple, I would ask you to read the text in light of Caligula attempting to set up a statue of himself in the Temple. I think it makes just as much, if not more, sense in this context and that this would imply a remarkably very early date for Mark (40 CE).