Where Did the 4 Gospels and Acts Come From?

[hedrick]

There’s little concrete information on dating of the Gospels. That leaves it open to various theories. The OP dates them a bit later than I think is typical. My understanding is that a typical view among critical scholars would put Mark 64-70, and the other three in the late 1st Cent. I don’t think there’s a very good case for Luke depending upon Matthew. One argument on dating in 2 of my 3 commentaries on Luke is that Luke-Acts doesn’t seem to have access to Paul’s letters, thus limiting how late it could be.

I also think that a 2nd Cent dating of John is less common now than in the mid 20th Cent. Partly this is because of discovery of a fragmentary papyrus, which is dated early 2nd Cent. Partly it is because of understanding that John has more Jewish influenced than used to be understood, and partly because it doesn’t appear that there’s any clear dependence on the Synoptics.

On the other hand, claims that all of them were written before 70 haven't been widely accepted.

 

[cloudyday2]

If the historical Jesus was along the line of Bart D Ehrmans idea of the apocalyptic preacher, the idea of him preaching the destruction of Jerusalem and indeed the temple would not be unlikely.

I believe the Essenes considered the temple to be defiled and the priesthood to be illegitimate (or maybe it was some other sect). They wanted the temple to be destroyed and, in particular, burned with fire. The burning was supposed to purify the temple, so that a new temple could be built. Jesus and his followers were probably an offshoot of the Essenes, so they might have hoped for these things too.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Jesus and his followers were probably an offshoot of the Essenes, so they might have hoped for these things too.

You have evidence or just wishful thinking?

 

[hedrick]

I think Ehrman is wrong. The failed apocalyptic preacher thing was more common in the mid 20th Cent than now, because a lot of people now see the Kingdom as present or both present and future. The failed prophet seems associated with the idea that Jesus expected an imminent end of the world. But that is no longer a dominant view of Jesus' main intention.

 

[cloudyday2]

You have evidence or just wishful thinking?

There are many theories about the historical Jesus. Some people think he was a Jew influenced by the Cynics. Some people think he was influenced by the Essenes. There are many theories. There were lots of sects of Jews in those times. Judaism wasn't so standardized as it is today.

The best thing is to read and form your own opinions. There are many possibilities.

 

[civilwarbuff]

There are many theories about the historical Jesus. Some people think he was a Jew influenced by the Cynics. Some people think he was influenced by the Essenes. There are many theories. There were lots of sects of Jews in those times. Judaism wasn't so standardized as it is today.

The best thing is to read and form your own opinions. There are many possibilities.

Again, evidence?...yes or no?

 

[cloudyday2]

Again, evidence?...yes or no?

I don't have the energy to play games with you. If you really want answers, then you can use google to find some websites, read some books, etc. If you simply want to pretend that my statement is not backed by any evidence, then go right ahead. The theory that Jesus may have been influenced by some sect of Essenes should not be a shock to anybody, and I don't think I need to defend it - anymore than I need to defend that the Earth is round.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I don't have the energy to play games with you. If you really want answers, then you can use google to find some websites, read some books, etc. If you simply want to pretend that my statement is not backed by any evidence, then go right ahead. The theory that Jesus may have been influenced by some sect of Essenes should not be a shock to anybody, and I don't think I need to defend it - anymore than I need to defend that the Earth is round.

You made the statement, it is up to you to defend it. Present some evidence.....otherwise it is nothing more than atheistic hooey.....

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

I believe the Essenes considered the temple to be defiled and the priesthood to be illegitimate (or maybe it was some other sect). They wanted the temple to be destroyed and, in particular, burned with fire. The burning was supposed to purify the temple, so that a new temple could be built. Jesus and his followers were probably an offshoot of the Essenes, so they might have hoped for these things too.

I highly doubt that Jesus came from an offshoot of the Essenes just as I doubt the Essenes wanted the Jerusalem Temple destroyed. I think it more likely that they considered the Jerusalem Temple to be as unimportant as the Samaritan Temple and the Egyptian Temple. And Jesus does appear to accept the centrality of the Jerusalem Temple, the stories portray him as holding the Temple to be very important.

Some have argued that John the Baptist came from the Essenes, I don't think we know one way or another. We don't appear to have very much information on John's attitude towards the Temple and it's been a while since I read Josephus's account of John...

 

[doubtingmerle]

The gospel tradition does not seem to know of Hebrews, James or the Apocalypse either. Luke does seem to know of Paul but if one were to read only the gospel of Luke one could walk away thinking differently, it's only in Acts that Luke introduces the character of Paul into his narrative. So an author betraying knowledge of another isn't a good argument.

Sure, but is there any reason the evangelists should have known of Hebrews and James if they were written in some far off community? If, however, the gospels we now have are the best reliable source of information about Jesus, then we would expect early Christians like Paul to at least be familiar with them if they had been written in Paul's time. Paul seems to know nothing about them.
Luke knows of Paul, but often doesn't match well with Paul's writings. Paul insisted he also was an apostle, but Acts makes it clear that there were only 12, and Paul was not one of them. Paul tells us he had no contact with the 12 until long after conversion, and that he and Peter heavily disputed Jewish laws, but Acts tells a different story.
Luke/Acts takes a knowledge of Matthew/Mark and an overview knowledge of Paul, and merges them into a story of how the Jesus of Mark led to Paul which led to Christianity in Asia minor and Rome. The book of Luke was a rewrite of Matthew/Mark, so had no need for Paul.

Paul does include some very minor sayings of Jesus as well as the Eucharist practices, did the Markan tradition acquire this from Paul or perhaps from a common source?

Paul said he received his knowledge of the Eucharist from revelation. Whether he received it directly or from another source, Mark probably got it either from Paul or Paul's source.
Paul never directly quotes the gospels. Sure he has some overlap of moral teaching, but isn't that to be expected?

The point of these sorts of questions are that we can't answer them definitively we can just posit them to see what happens to the data when we look at it from different perspectives.

Correct, all we can do is piece together the evidence and figure out what we think most likely happened. We can never be certain.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Sure, the Sabbath dispute of Mark 3:1-6 doesn't make sense in a Gentile majority Christian context. Same with the Mosaic purity practices Jesus prescribes the cleansed leaper in Mark 1:44. Marks gospel also contains several passages which are literal translations o fAramaic sources (i.e. Mark 9:11-13; Mark 2:23-3:6; Mark 10:35-45; Mark 14:12-26).

Interesting. I am not an expert on Jewish customs so I have no comment on this other than to ask if Mark could not have been aware of customs 40 years earlier, and incorporated them into his story.

If some of the sayings look like they came from Aramaic sources, that does not prove that the book of Mark was early. Mark could have had access to some saying from earlier writings or from what he heard from others.

 

[cloudyday2]

I highly doubt that Jesus came from an offshoot of the Essenes just as I doubt the Essenes wanted the Jerusalem Temple destroyed. I think it more likely that they considered the Jerusalem Temple to be as unimportant as the Samaritan Temple and the Egyptian Temple. And Jesus does appear to accept the centrality of the Jerusalem Temple, the stories portray him as holding the Temple to be very important.

Some have argued that John the Baptist came from the Essenes, I don't think we know one way or another. We don't appear to have very much information on John's attitude towards the Temple and it's been a while since I read Josephus's account of John...

Depending on what parts of the gospels are factual, it seems that if John the Baptist was an Essene, then many of the disciples were also Essenes. For example, the fact that there were 12 disciples with 3 chief disciples matches the Essene practices. Of course there are also many differences. Some scholars use the term "Enochian Judaism" to encompass the Essenes and some other related groups who valued the books of Enoch, Daniel, and so forth. Geza Vermes used the term "charismatic Judaism".

 

[AV1611VET]

Depending on what parts of the gospels are factual, it seems that if John the Baptist was an Essene, then many of the disciples were also Essenes. For example, the fact that there were 12 disciples with 3 chief disciples matches the Essene practices. Of course there are also many differences. Some scholars use the term "Enochian Judaism" to encompass the Essenes and some other related groups who valued the books of Enoch, Daniel, and so forth. Geza Vermes used the term "charismatic Judaism".

John the Baptist was an Old Testament saint, and the last of the Old Testament prophets -- also the greatest.

Matthew 11:11a Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist:

Some say the Jolly Roger is an icon of him.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Depending on what parts of the gospels are factual, it seems that if John the Baptist was an Essene, then many of the disciples were also Essenes. For example, the fact that there were 12 disciples with 3 chief disciples matches the Essene practices. Of course there are also many differences. Some scholars use the term "Enochian Judaism" to encompass the Essenes and some other related groups who valued the books of Enoch, Daniel, and so forth. Geza Vermes used the term "charismatic Judaism".

John the Baptist was not an apostle....

 

[AV1611VET]

John the Baptist was not an apostle....

Satan probably raised up the Essenes to write the Dead Sea Scrolls.

He has nine powerful angels (muses) that are in charge of the arts and sciences.

 

[cloudyday2]

I can't tell when you guys are being serious and when you are pulling my leg, so I don't know how to react LOL

 

[cloudyday2]

John the Baptist was not an apostle....

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and explain what I meant. In one version of the calling of the first disciples (the gospel of John version), they were originally disciples of John the Baptist. It seems reasonable to assume that if John the Baptist was an Essene, then his disciples were also Essenes - or at least influenced by Essene beliefs and practices.

35 The next day again John was standing with two of his disciples; 36 and he looked at Jesus as he walked, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God!” 37 The two disciples heard him say this, and they followed Jesus. 38 Jesus turned, and saw them following, and said to them, “What do you seek?” And they said to him, “Rabbi” (which means Teacher), “where are you staying?” 39 He said to them, “Come and see.” They came and saw where he was staying; and they stayed with him that day, for it was about the tenth hour. 40 One of the two who heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. 41 He first found his brother Simon, and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which means Christ). 42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Petera]'>[a]).

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1:35-42&version=RSV

 

[civilwarbuff]

John the Baptist was not an apostle....

Serious. You have him confused with John the Apostle.

 

[cloudyday2]

Serious. You have him confused with John the Apostle.

Read post #117 where I explain what I meant in post #112.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Sorry, I missed #117.

It seems reasonable to assume that if John the Baptist was an Essene, then his disciples were also Essenes - or at least influenced by Essene beliefs and practices.

That might be true if he were Essene. Where do you get information that JtB was Essene?