Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

again if you would read teh link in the op it would be a lot better. but since you want, here's page 2 of the link.


Non Canonical Gospels


Lost Gospels


Story by Kay Albright, (785) 864-8858

University Relations, the public relations office for the University of Kansas Lawrence campus. Copyright 1997

LAWRENCE - Fragments of a fourth-century Egyptian manuscript contain a lost gospel dating from the first or second century, according to Paul Mirecki, associate professor of religious studies at the University of Kansas.

Mirecki discovered the manuscript in the vast holdings of Berlin's Egyptian Museums in 1991. The book contains a rare "dialogue gospel" with conversations between Jesus and his disciples, shedding light on the origins of early Judaisms and Christianities.

The lost gospel, whose original title has not survived, has similarities to the Gospel of John and the most famous lost gospel, the gospel of Thomas, which was discovered in Egypt in 1945.

The newly discovered gospel is written in Coptic, the ancient Egyptian language using Greek letters. Mirecki said the gospel was probably the product of a Christian minority group called Gnostics, or "knowers."

Mirecki said the discussion between Jesus and his disciples probably takes place after the resurrection, since the text is in the same literary genre as other post-resurrection dialogues, though the condition of the manuscript makes the time element difficult to determine.

"This lost gospel presents us with more primary evidence that the origins of early Christianity were far more diverse than medieval church historians would tell us," Mirecki said. "Early orthodox histories denigrated and then banished from political memory the existence of these peaceful people and their sacred texts, of which this gospel is one."

Mirecki is editing the manuscript with Charles Hedrick, professor of religious studies at Southwest Missouri State University, Springfield. Both men independently studied the manuscript while working on similar projects in Berlin.

A chance encounter at a professional convention in 1995 in Philadelphia made both men realize that they were working on the same project. They decided to collaborate, and their book will be published this summer by Brill Publishers in the Netherlands.

The calfskin manuscript is damaged, and only 15 pages remain. Mirecki said it was probably the victim of an orthodox book burning in about the fifth century.



The 34 Gospels


Bible Review, June 2002: 20-31; 46-47


Charles W. Hendrick, professor who discovered the lost Gospel of the Savior tells us

Mirecki and I are not the first scholars to find a new ancient gospel. In fact scholars now have copies of 19 gospels (either complete, in fragments or in quotations), written in the first and second centuries A.D— nine of which were discovered in the 20th century. Two more are preserved, in part, in other andent writings, and we know the names of several others, but do not have copies of them. Clearly, Luke was not exaggerating when he wrote in his opening verse: "Many undertook to compile narratives [aboutJesus]" (Luke 1:1). Every one of these gospels was deemed true and sacred by at least some early Christians



These Gospels demonstrate a great diversity among the early chruch, the diminish the claims of an orthodox purity. On the other hand, they tell us more about the historical Jesus as well. One thing they all have in common is to that they show Jesus as a historical figure, working in public and conducting his teachings before people, not as a spirit being devoid of human life.Hendrick says,"Gospels-whether canonical or not- are collections of anecdotes from Jesus' public career."

Many of these lost Gospels pre date the canonical gospels, which puts them prior to AD 60 for Mark:

Hendrick:

The Gospel of the Saviour, too. fits this description. Contrary' to popular opinion, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not included m the canon simply because they were the earliest gospels or because they were eyewitness accounts. Some non canonical gospels are dated roughly to the same period, and the canonical gospels and other early Christian accounts appear to rely on earlier reports. Thus, as far as the physical evidence is concerned, the canonical gospels do not take precedence over the noncanonical gospels. The fragments of John, Thomas and theEgerton Gospel share the distinction of being the earliest extant pieces of Christian writing known. And although the existing manuscript evidence for Thomas dates to the mid-second century, the scholars who first published the Greek fragments held open the possibility that it was actually composed in the first century, which would put it around the time John was composed.



The unknown Gospel of Papyrus Egerton 2

The unknown Gospel of Egerton 2 was discovered in Egypt in 1935 exiting in two different manuscripts. The original editors found that the handwriting was that of a type from the late first early second century. In 1946 Goro Mayeda published a dissertation which argues for the independence of the readings from the canonical tradition. This has been debated since then and continues to be debated. Recently John B. Daniels in his Clairmont Dissertation argued for the independence of the readings from canonical sources. (John B. Daniels, The Egerton Gospel: It's place in Early Christianity, Dissertation Clairmont: CA 1990). Daniels states "Egerton's Account of Jesus healing the leaper Plausibly represents a separate tradition which did not undergo Markan redaction...Compositional choices suggest that...[the author] did not make use of the Gospel of John in canonical form." (Daniels, abstract). The unknown Gospel of Egerton 2 is remarkable still further in that it mixes Johannie language with Synoptic contexts and vice versa. which, "permits the conjecture that the author knew all and everyone of the canonical Gospels." (Joachim Jeremias, Unknown Sayings, "An Unknown Gospel with Johannine Elements" in Hennecke-Schneemelcher-Wilson, NT Apocrypha 1.96). The Unknown Gospel preserves a tradition of Jesus healing the leper in Mark 1:40-44. (Note: The independent tradition in the Diatessaran was also of the healing of the leper). There is also a version of the statement about rendering unto Caesar. Space does not permit a detailed examination of the passages to really prove Koster's point here. But just to get a taste of the differences we are talking about:

Egerton 2: "And behold a leper came to him and said "Master Jesus, wandering with lepers and eating with them in the inn, I therefore became a leper. If you will I shall be clean. Accordingly the Lord said to him "I will, be clean" and immediately the leprosy left him.
Mark 1:40: And the leper came to him and beseeching him said '[master?] if you will you can make me clean. And he stretched out his hands and touched him and said "I will be clean" and immediately the leprosy left him.
Egerton 2: "tell us is it permitted to give to Kings what pertains to their rule? Tell us, should we give it? But Jesus knowing their intentions got angry and said "why do you call me teacher with your mouth and do not what I say"? Mark 12:13-15: Is it permitted to pay taxes to Caesar or not? Should we pay them or not? But knowing their hypocrisy he said to them "why do you put me to the test, show me the coin?"



Koster:

"There are two solutions that are equally improbable. It is unlikely that the pericope in Egerton 2 is an independent older tradition. It is equally hard to imagine that anyone would have deliberately composed this apophthegma by selecting sentences from three different Gospel writings. There are no analogies to this kind of Gospel composition because this pericope is neither a harmony of parallels from different Gospels, nor is it a florogelium. If one wants to uphold the hypothesis of dependence upon written Gospels one would have to assume that the pericope was written form memory....What is decisive is that there is nothing in the pericope that reveals redactional features of any of the Gospels that parallels appear. The author of Papyrus Egerton 2 uses independent building blocks of sayings for the composition of this dialogue none of the blocks have been formed by the literary activity of any previous Gospel writer. If Papyrus Egerton 2 is not dependent upon the Fourth Gospel it is an important witness to an earlier stage of development of the dialogues of the fourth Gospel....(Koester , 3.2 p.215)


Gospel of Peter

Fragments of the Gospel of Peter were found in 1886 /87 in Akhimim, upper Egypt. These framents were from the 8th or 9th century. No other fragment was found for a long time until one turned up at Oxyrahynchus, which were written in 200 AD. Bishop Serapion of Antioch made the statement prior to 200 that a Gospel had been put forward in the name of Peter. This statement is preserved by Eusebius who places Serapion around 180. But the Akhimim fragment contains three periciopes. The Resurrection, to which the guards at the tomb are witnesses, the empty tomb, or which the women are witnesses, and an epiphany of Jesus appearing to Peter and the 12, which end the book abruptly.

Many features of the Gospel of Peter are clearly from secondary sources, that is reworked versions of the canonical story. These mainly consist of 1) exaggerated miracles; 2) anti-Jewish polemic.The cross follows Jesus out of the tomb, a voice from heaven says "did you preach the gospel to all?" The cross says "Yea." And Pilate is totally exonerated, the Jews are blamed for the crucifixion. (Koester, p.218). However, "there are other traces in the Gospel of Peter which demonstrate an old and independent tradition." The way the suffering of Jesus is described by the use of passages from the old Testament without quotation formulae is, in terms of the tradition, older than the explicit scriptural proof; it represents the oldest form of the passion of Jesus. (Philipp Vielhauer, Geschichte, 646] Jurgen Denker argues that the Gospel of Peter shares this tradition of OT quotation with the Canonicals but is not dependent upon them. (In Koester p.218) Koester writes, "John Dominic Crosson has gone further [than Denker]...he argues that this activity results in the composition of a literary document at a very early date i.e. in the middle of the First century CE" (Ibid). Said another way, the interpretation of Scripture as the formation of the passion narrative became an independent document, a ur-Gospel, as early as the middle of the first century!

Corosson's Cross Gospel is this material in the Gospel of Peter through which, with the canonicals and other non-canonical Gospels Crosson constructs a whole text. According to the theory, the earliest of all written passion narratives is given in this material, is used by Mark, Luke, Matthew, and by John, and also Peter. Peter becomes a very important 5th witness. Koester may not be as famous as Crosson but he is just as expert and just as liberal. He takes issue with Crosson on three counts:

1) no extant text,its all coming form a late copy of Peter,

2) it assumes the literary composition of latter Gospels can be understood to relate to the compositions of earlier ones;

3) Koester believes that the account ends with the empty tomb and has independent sources for the epihanal material.

Koester:

"A third problem regarding Crossan's hypotheses is related specifically to the formation of reports about Jesus' trial, suffering death, burial, and resurrection. The account of the passion of Jesus must have developed quite eary because it is one and the same account that was used by Mark (and subsequently Matthew and Luke) and John and as will be argued below by the Gospel of Peter. However except for the appearances of Jesus after his resurrection in the various gospels cannot derive from a single source, they are independent of one another. Each of the authors of the extant gospels and of their secondary endings drew these epiphany stories from their own particular tradition, not form a common source." (Koester, p. 220)

"Studies of the passion narrative have shown that all gospels were dependent upon one and the same basic account of the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb. With respect to the stories of Jesus' appearances, each of the extant gospels of the canon used different traditions of epiphany stories which they appended to the one canon passion account. This also applies to the Gospel of Peter. There is no reason to assume that any of the epiphany stories at the end of the gospel derive from the same source on which the account of the passion is based."(Ibid)


So Koester differs from Crosson mainly in that he divides the epiphanies up into different sources. Another major distinction between the two is that Crosson finds the story of Jesus burial to be an interpolation from Mark to John. Koester argues that there is no evidence to understand this story as dependent upon Mark. (Ibid). Unfortunately we don't' have space to go through all of the fascinating analysis which leads Koester to his conclusions. Essentially he is comparing the placement of the pericopes and the dependence of one source upon another. What he finds is mutual use made by the canonicals and Peter of a an older source that all of the barrow from, but Peter does not come by that material through the canonicals, it is independent of them.

"The Gospel of Peter, as a whole, is not dependent upon any of the canonical gospels. It is a composition which is analogous to the Gospel of Mark and John. All three writings, independently of each other, use older passion narrative which is based upon an exegetical tradition that was still alive when these gospels were composed and to which the Gospel of Matthew also had access. All five gospels under consideration, Mark, John, and Peter, as well as Matthew and Luke, concluded their gospels with narratives of the appearances of Jesus on the basis of different epiphany stories that were told in different contexts. However, fragments of the epiphany story of Jesus being raised form the tomb, which the Gospel of Peter has preserved in its entirety, were employed in different literary contexts in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew." (Ibid, p. 240).


Also see my essay Have Gaurds, Will Aruge in which Jurgen Denker and Raymond Brown also agree about the indpeendent nature of GPete. Brown made his reputation proving the case, and pubulshes a huge chart in Death of the Messiah which shows the idendepnt nature and traces it line for line. Unfortunately I can't reproduce the chart.

What all of this means is, that there were independent traditions of the same stories, the same documents, used by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John which were still alive and circulating even when these canonical gospels were written. They represent much older sources and the basic work which all of these others use, goes back to the middle of the first century. It definitely posited Jesus as a flesh and blood man, living in historical context with other humans, and dying on the cross in historical context with other humans, and raising from the dead in historical context, not in some ethereal realm or in outer space. He was not the airy fairy Gnostic redeemer of Doherty, but the living flesh and blood "Son of Man."

Moreover, since the breakdown of Ur gospel and epiphany sources (independent of each other) demands the logical necessity of still other sources, and since the other material described above amounts to the same thing, we can push the envelope even further and say that at the very latest there were independent gospel source circulating in the 40s, well within the life span of eye witnesses, which were based upon the assumption that Jesus was a flesh and blood man, that he had an historical existence. Note: all these "other Gospels" are not merely oriented around the same stories, events, or ideas, but basically they are oriented around the same sentences. There is very little actual new material in any of them, and no new stories. They all essentially assume the same sayings. There is some new material in Thomas, and others, but essentially they are all about the same things. Even the Gospel of Mary which creates a new setting, Mary discussing with the Apostles after Jesus has returned to heaven, but the words are basically patterned after the canonicals. It is as though there is an original repository of the words and events and all other versions follow that repository. This repository is most logically explained as the original events! Jesus actual teachings!



Canonical Gospels




The Diatessaon is an attempt at a Harmony of the four canonical Gospels. It was complied by Titian in about AD172, but it contains readings whihc imply that he used versions of the canonical gosples some of which contian pre markan elements.

In an article published in the Back of Helmut Koester's Ancient Christian Gospels, William L. Petersen states:

"Sometimes we stumble across readings which are arguably earlier than the present canonical text. One is Matthew 8:4 (and Parallels) where the canonical text runs "go show yourself to the priests and offer the gift which Moses commanded as a testimony to them" No fewer than 6 Diatessaronic witnesses...give the following (with minor variants) "Go show yourself to the priests and fulfill the law." With eastern and western support and no other known sources from which these Diatessaranic witnesses might have acquired the reading we must conclude that it is the reading of Tatian...The Diatessaronic reading is certainly more congielian to Judaic Christianity than than to the group which latter came to dominate the church and which edited its texts, Gentile Christians. We must hold open the possibility that the present canonical reading might be a revision of an earlier, stricter , more explicit and more Judeo-Christian text, here preserved only in the Diatessaron. (From "Titian's Diatessaron" by William L. Petersen, in Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development, Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990, p. 424)




The Jesus Narrative In Pauline Literature



Paul's allusions to the narrative relates to many points in the Gospels:

He was flesh and blood (Phil 2:6, 1 Tim 3:16)
Born from the lineage of David (Rom 1:3-4, 2 Tim 2:8)
Jesus' baptism is implied (Rom 10:9)
The last supper (1 Cor 11:23ff)
Confessed his Messiahship before Pilate (1 Tim 6:13)
Died for peoples' sins (Rom 4:25, 1 Tim 2:6)
He was killed (1 Cor 15:3, Phil 2:8)
Buried (1 Cor 15:4)
Empty tomb is implied (1 Cor 15:4)
Jesus was raised from the dead (2 Tim 2:8)
Resurrected Jesus appeared to people (1 Cor 15:4ff)
James, a former skeptics, witnessed this (1 Cor 15:7)
as did Paul (1 Cor 15:8-9)
This was reported at an early date (1 Cor 15:4-8)
He asceded to heaven, glorified and exalted (1 Tim 3:16, Phil 2:6f)
Disciples were transformed by this (1 Tim 3:16)
Disciples made the Gospel center of preaching (1 Cor 15:1-4)
Resurrection was chief validation of message (Rom 1:3-4, Rom 10:9-10)
Called Son of God (Rom 1:3-4)
Called Lord (Rom 1:4, Rom 10:9, Phil 2:11)
Called God (Phil 2:6)
Called Christ or Messiah (Rom 1:4, Phil 2:11



Summary and Conclusion

Koster and Crosson both agree that the PMR was circulating in written form with empty tomb and passion narrative, as early as 50AD


From this notion as a base line for the beging of the process of redaction, and using the traditional dates given the final prodct of canonical gosples as the base line for the end of the process, we can see that it is quite probable that the canonical gosples were formed between 50 and 95 AD. It appears most likely that the early phase, from the events thsemlves that form the Gospel, to the circualration of a written narrative, there was a controled oral tradition that had its hay day in the 30's-40's but probably overlapped into the 60's or 70's. The say sources began to be produced, probably in the 40's, as the first written attempt to remember Jesus' teachings. The production of a written narrative in 50, or there abouts, probably sparked interest among the communities of the faitufl in producing their own narrative accounts; after all, they too had eye witnesses.

Between 50-70's those who gravitated toward Gnostiicsm began emphasizing those saying sources and narrative pericopes that interested them for their seeming ghsotic elements, while the Orhtodox honed their own orthodox sources that are reflected in Paul's choices of material,and latter in the canonical gospels themselves. So a great "divying up" process began where by what would become ghonstic lore got it's start, and for that reason was weeded out of the orhtodox pile of sayings and doings. By that I mean sayings Like "if you are near to the fire you are near to life" (Gospel of the Savior) or "cleave the stone and I am there" (Thomas) "If Heaven is in the coulds the birds of the air will get there before you" (Thomas) have a seeming gnostic falvor but could be constured as orthodox. These were used by the gnsotically inclined and left by the orhtodox. That makes sense as we see the earlist battles with gnosticism begining to heat up in the Pauline literature.

My own theory is that Mark was produced in several forms between 60-70, before finally comeing to rest in the form we know it today in 70. During that time Matthew and Luke each copied from different versions of it. John bears some commonality with Mark, according to Koester, becasue both draw upon the PMR. Thus the early formation of John began in 50-s or 60s, the great schism of the group probaly happened in the 70's or 80s, with the gnostic bunching leaving for Egypt and producing their own Gnsotic redaction of the gospel of John, the orothodx group then producing the final form by adding the proluge which in effect, is the ultiamte censore to those who left the group.

The Gospel materal was ciruclaring throughtout Church hsitory, form the infancyof the Chruch to the final production of Canonical Gospels. Thus the skeptical retort that "they weren't written until decades latter" is totally irrelvaint. It is not the case,they were being written all along, and they were the pfocut of the communities from which they sprang, the communities which originally witnessed the evetns and the ministry of Jesus christ.


see my essay community as author

Metacrock, I have no problem with accepting all early dates for parts of the gospels. But, for me, I have a BIG problem with Matthew and Luke differences in the birth accounts and resurrection accounts. They are quite simply, not compatible. It takes a tremendous stretch of imagination to say that they are both accurate. IF THERE WAS A CLEAR TRADITION -- 20 years later, or 120 years later, about the events surrounding the birth of Jesus and his resurrection, I would NOT expect the dramatic differences in accounts. They are TOO DIFFERENT to be versions of the same stories by two different people. So that negates the eyewitness account for early writings. And if their differences are to be explained by offshoots from tradition, which tradition is actually right? And how does one escape the conclusion that one or both are actually WRONG? This is one of the biggest barriers to my being able to believe the Christian story.

These accounts have the appearance of being made up to fill in pieces missing in any early accounts/traditions/writings we have. If Mark and GJohn were around in say 60AD and people were reading them, they might question: what about Jesus' birth? what about the resurrection appearances? Answers were in demand. The main things in common with the two gospels are what one would expect if someone just made them up. In the case of the birth accounts: virgin birth, Bethlehem. In the case of the resurrection accounts: he appeared to his followers and told them to spread the news, then went to heaven. Unfortunately the accounts that give those answers are hopelessly incompatable.

How do you, as a person desiring to face things in a logical manner, answer this? I'm serious. I'd like to know.

TedM wrote:Metacrock, I have no problem with accepting all early dates for parts of the gospels. But, for me, I have a BIG problem with Matthew and Luke differences in the birth accounts and resurrection accounts. They are quite simply, not compatible. It takes a tremendous stretch of imagination to say that they are both accurate. IF THERE WAS A CLEAR TRADITION -- 20 years later, or 120 years later, about the events surrounding the birth of Jesus and his resurrection, I would NOT expect the dramatic differences in accounts. They are TOO DIFFERENT to be versions of the same stories by two different people. So that negates the eyewitness account for early writings. And if their differences are to be explained by offshoots from tradition, which tradition is actually right? And how does one escape the conclusion that one or both are actually WRONG? This is one of the biggest barriers to my being able to believe the Christian story.

no big deal. Luke liked Mary. He probalby used as a source. His line of genealogy is thought to be Mary's line (Edershiem). Matthew seems to by the throne and line connecting Jesus through Joseph as his assumed father to the throne of Israel. Luke is not too concenred with that he would rather trace Mary. what does that have to do with the birth narratives? The wise men in Matt. are connected to royalty it was the King who sent them and they are going out to fine the new king. The Shepard are not concerned with politics or thrones they are just following what the angels told them. Matt is more into the formal and royal credentials and Luke is into the spiritual.

that accounts for one why focused one even and the other on the other events. what's the contradiction in thinking that both things happened? why can't both sets of people visit them at the birth? there there several weeks.

the difference in accounts at the empty tomb are very slight. there is one contradictory problem where have to assume someone fudged. that's the order in which Luke's women see the angels and report back as opposed to Matt's women. Luke wasn't there and the order he understood would depend upon what eye witnesses he got to talk to. He might have had to fill in a gap with his own conjecture. What difference does that really make?

they all agree Jesus was buried in the tomb, it came up empty, he was seen alive again.

These accounts have the appearance of being made up to fill in pieces missing in any early accounts/traditions/writings we have.

not really. they really seem like account put together by talking to different sets of witnesses and I bet that's what happened. the four evangelists got hold of different set of eye witnesses. that would be dependent upon which community they had access to.

read my Gospel harmony I show how it's really one one coordianted story that makes sense.

If Mark and GJohn were around in say 60AD and people were reading them, they might question: what about Jesus' birth? what about the resurrection appearances? Answers were in demand. The main things in common with the two gospels are what one would expect if someone just made them up. In the case of the birth accounts: virgin birth, Bethlehem. In the case of the resurrection accounts: he appeared to his followers and told them to spread the news, then went to heaven. Unfortunately the accounts that give those answers are hopelessly incompatable.

they certainly would have set up a resurrection harmony that very day that they started talking about it. within a month at least they would have the story coordinated. They would probalby deal with his birth within in the first decade.

How do you, as a person desiring to face things in a logical manner, answer this? I'm serious. I'd like to know.

I understand what you say and I appreciate your concerns. First of all it's only really that important to an interesting. I am not an internist. I can handle the idea that some of the accounts are wrong. So it's been a long time since that was an important issue for me.

Secondly, when I first got saved I did worry about that and worked it out. The harmony I linked you back to those early days of my born against period where I just baptized in the holy spirit and just trying to figure out what happened. I was an internist then. so I was important to me to work it out with no mistakes.

I think that no mistake thing is a real mistake. Here's my pages on Biblical revelation please read them.

Hi Metcrock,

As regards your statement, "you are untrained and you are trying to tell experts they don't know their stuff you are too ignorant to research it. there are tons of scholars who date Mark at 70 and don't believe in God. get your head on straight. you don't need this BS fake anti-thinking crap to be a skeptic."

I have a Ph.D. in Philosophy and I am well aware of both current standards and the history of scholarship.

I have read every serious article up to about 2010 on the dating of the gospels.
If you have any serious arguments to make, please make them. The statements you have made so far are nonsense not even worth the time to type a refutation.

I educate people who are nice to me and wish to learn or people who pay me. I am afraid you fall into neither category.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Metacrock wrote:

PhilosopherJay wrote:Hi All,

The best evidence for the dating of the NT gospels is this:
1) Justin Martyr's works, written around 150-180 are unaware of the gospels.
2) Tertullian and Irenaeus or Tertullian (Irenaeus) writing about 200 are/is aware of the gospels.
This indicates that the gospels were written between 150-200.
3) The physical evidence suggests that the earliest surviving manuscripts are post 200.
Conclusion: The gospels were probably written between 150-200.
This does not mean that earlier text was not used in the creation of the NT gospels.

no sorry, not the way dating works. First those dates are debatable. some paut Justin 120. That' snot important. those do not have to quote the gospels for us to know they existed. we have fragments from 135. John Rylands is almost certainly around 135. that is giving 20 years to be copied and to travel. It was composed Asia minor and they found it in Egypt.

Going by the early MS is not a bit actuate. MS are had to keep together there are many fragments that are much older than that. That's not even counting uncles and other types of fragments used for reading in chruch and so on.

There's allusions by other writers. Igantious refers to a lot of subject matter in John. For that matter Paul refers to many passages in the Gospels and hey weren't even written at that point. more evidence that the same material was in circulation in other forms mid first century.

You didn't read the link did you? why in the hell can't atheist read links? read the damn links!

All the arguments for a First century dating of the NT gospels are just wishful projections of the Christian imagination.

no that's just ignronace. you do not understand scholarly methods. Read the damn links!

The dating of the so-called scholars between 70-100 are just compromises between the actual evidence: 150-200 and the pious ideological demands of the clergy foot soldiers who have sworn to their faithful legions that they are eyewitness accounts written soon after the crucifixion between 30-35.

atheist wishful thinking. the anti-intellectual "I hate to think" atheist needs desperately to deny God and doesn't' give a damn about facts.

you are untrained and you are trying to tell experts they don't know their stuff you are too ignorant to research it. there are tons of scholars who date Mark at 70 and don't believe in God. get your head on straight. you don't need this BS fake anti-thinking crap to be a skeptic.

There is no such thing as an "atheist assumption regarding the Gospels." You are confusing critical scholarship (which is mostly done by believers) with atheists.

Matthew and Luke's nativities are set ten years apart. There's no way around that. Bethlehem didn't exist in the 2TP. Nobody had to travel to their ancestral homes for a census. The census did not apply to Galilee anyway. Magi were not astrologers. There was no slaughter of innocents in Bethlehem by Herod. There was no Bethlehem and there was no reason he would have cared about some peasant baby anyway. Rome decided who the King was, not Zoroastrian priests from Persian and not the peasantry. Luke did not interview witnesses. His sources are Mark, Q and Josephus.

The empty tomb story is not attested in the earliest Christian literature or ur-literature until at least 40 years after the crucifixion where it turns up in Mark. No empty tomb is attested independently of Mark. The other gospels get it from Mark and Mark says nobody knew about it because the women ran away from the tomb without telling anybody. Paul has never heard of an empty tomb. it's not in Q or Thomas or the creedal artifacts in Paul or Acts.

Nothing in the Gospels comes from eyewitness accounts or claims to. Matthew and Luke copied their narratives from Mark. John is patently fictive with no interest in history.

The Gospels are filled with anachronistic references which date them past 70, and likely into the 2nd Century (e.g John's aposynagogos, anachronistic references to rabbis and synagogues and seeming knowledge of Gnostics).

Luke almost certainly uses Josephus Antiquities. I would also argue that Mark uses Wars.

There is simply no good argument at all to date any of the Gospels before 70 and we know for a fact that Luke and Matthew copy Mark. This is not an "atheist" position, this is mainstream scholarship mostly done by Christians.

Metacrock wrote: Luke liked Mary. He probalby used as a source. His line of genealogy is thought to be Mary's line (Edershiem). Matthew seems to by the throne and line connecting Jesus through Joseph as his assumed father to the throne of Israel. Luke is not too concenred with that he would rather trace Mary. what does that have to do with the birth narratives?

There is a HUGE problem in all of these discussions. You cannot use "Paul's Writings" to date the Gospels if "Paul" is under examination as well. Questions about "Genealogies" have little meaning if the authorship of the genealogy is itself under question.

Josephus, Antiquities..., 14, 1, 3:

"It is true that Nicolatls (sic) of Damascus says, that Antipater was of the stock of the principal Jews who came out of Babylon into Judea; but that assertion of his was to gratify Herod, who was his son, and who, by certain revolutions of fortune, came afterward to be king of the Jews..."

So Nicholas of Damascus writes a genealogy for Herod for the purpose of allowing Herod to become High Priest if he so desired. What of it? Important point: "...that Antipater was of the stock of the principal Jews who came out of Babylon..." Where have we seen this before?

Matthew 1: 11 - 12 (RSV):

[11] and Josi'ah the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.
[12] And after the deportation to Babylon: Jechoni'ah was the father of She-al'ti-el, and She-al'ti-el the father of Zerub'babel,

Now, this fabrication of Nicholas of Damascus, Political Control Officer answerable to Caesar (as well as Ptolemy, NoD's brother and Keeper of Herod's Seal...) goes back to Herod and there are many references going back to Jannaeus as well. Going forward finds references to the Temple Priests continuing after the shock of Archelaus. The Battle of Actium is for the World and Herod is on the wrong side but at least there is something there!

That is why, whether the Dating is done by atheists or believers, the end result will not matter. Until the Cross Cultural boundaries are examined, we cannot assume that there was "Paul who lived and wrote in the 40s" or whatever. The Logic of "Paul" has been examined and "Paul" is found wanting. He clearly states that his "revelation" came from no man. The Gospels were written after "Paul" and they are written as from people who are "looking back". They are "Constructions" and positing "Communities" studying "Sayings" that range from Jannaeus to Domitian is most certainly not helpful. There cannot be early dates for these materials because the Cause of these writings has not yet occurred, i.e. the road grading of Judea at the command of Titus. The Ascension of the Flavians at the expense of the Julio-Claudians. The Pruning of Eleazar with the Grafting of the Flavians. Through 2000 years, the History of the Jews has been minimized, hidden and degraded. There is a History to examine but it is not based on "Expectation Values" or "Partial Derivatives" that hold certain values true when examining other values that vary. Or Stealing a Culture to manufacture "Signs" that would Glorify Caesar.

CW

First, thanks for taking the time to reply in detail. Before I look at your thoughts on the matter of innerancy, etc..I will need to address the specifics, because to me they are a big deal because of the degree of their differences:

Metacrock wrote:
no big deal. Luke liked Mary. He probalby used as a source. His line of genealogy is thought to be Mary's line (Edershiem). Matthew seems to by the throne and line connecting Jesus through Joseph as his assumed father to the throne of Israel. Luke is not too concenred with that he would rather trace Mary. what does that have to do with the birth narratives? The wise men in Matt. are connected to royalty it was the King who sent them and they are going out to fine the new king. The Shepard are not concerned with politics or thrones they are just following what the angels told them. Matt is more into the formal and royal credentials and Luke is into the spiritual.

that accounts for one why focused one even and the other on the other events. what's the contradiction in thinking that both things happened? why can't both sets of people visit them at the birth? there there several weeks

Because of this: Luke's account has Joseph and Mary living in Nazareth and going to Bethlehem. The reason given is suspicious(census) and doesn't match the history we have with regard to censuses, nor time period. If Matthew had said the same I would be a little more ok with it but there are still those problems. But he didn't which makes it worse. While Matthew is silent about why they were in Bethlehem, he doesn't mention that they were from Nazareth. In fact, it sounds as though they lived in Bethlehem (note that Jesus was not in an 'inn' but was in a 'house'), and after fleeing to Egypt for a while to avoid Herod's wrath, they decided to live in Nazareth. Luke has them simply returning to Nazareth because that's where they lived in the first place. While the slaughter of the innocents to me doesn't sound too far-fetched given Herod's portrayal, it serves to explain why they left Bethlehem --ie why Jesus didn't grow up in Bethlehem. Can you see that it appears that Matthew decided to start them out in Bethlehem but needed a reason for them to end up in Nazareth, while Luke decided to start in Nazareth and return there, but needed a reason to get them to go to Bethlehem to be born there. Both reasons seem contrived -- the census has its problems, and the slaughter requires the whole star story to get Herod involved. Very very problematic for me because neither story overlap at all!

Can you not see why this is a deal-breaker for me on the truthfulness of those wonderful Christmas stories?

the difference in accounts at the empty tomb are very slight. there is one contradictory problem where have to assume someone fudged. that's the order in which Luke's women see the angels and report back as opposed to Matt's women. Luke wasn't there and the order he understood would depend upon what eye witnesses he got to talk to. He might have had to fill in a gap with his own conjecture. What difference does that really make?

they all agree Jesus was buried in the tomb, it came up empty, he was seen alive again.

Certainly a tradition of Jesus' resurrection would include an empty tomb and resurrection appearances. However to me the differences are HUGE, not slight. Luke's whole account takes place in Jerusalem, including the ascension. In Matthew, the only appearances (other than to the women with the annoucement we find in Mark) occur in Galilee, and the implication is that he ascends from a mountain in Galilee. Matthew is all about Galilee -- as is the short Mark ending. However, Luke is all about Jerusalem. In face in Luke Jesus TELLS THEM TO STAY IN JERUSALEM, whereas in Matthew they are to GO TO GALILEE. To me this is a HUGE problem, as again it appears that both authors are making things up to fill in missing gaps in the tradition.

not really. they really seem like account put together by talking to different sets of witnesses and I bet that's what happened. the four evangelists got hold of different set of eye witnesses. that would be dependent upon which community they had access to.

The claimed appearances were to the disciples. How can the place of these appearances be different in the tradition? Such appearances, if they had happened, would be solidified in tradition from DAY 1, yet Mark doesn't even include them. That's the problem here. It appears that there was a need to fill in missing information, so Luke and Matthew did it..but they don't even come close to agreeing which makes the accounts questionable. Now, one can point to 1 Cor 15 for support, but it doesn't state WHERE these appearances happened, so it doesn't help with the apparent contradictions.

For me this too is a deal-breaker. How are we supposed to have faith when the most reasonable interpretation is that very critical parts of the stories that were left out early on were filled in not from actual events, but from imaginations?

they certainly would have set up a resurrection harmony that very day that they started talking about it. within a month at least they would have the story coordinated. They would probalby deal with his birth within in the first decade.

This makes some assumptions that I think are very questionable:

Re the births: This assumes that early on the tradition included a birth in Bethlehem. But if it was known that Jesus grew up in Nazareth and Mary and Jesus' family wouldn't confirm a birth in Bethlehem, might that explain why Mark left it out, and why John voices the skepticism some had about Jesus being the 'Messiah'?:

John 7:41 Others were saying, “This is the Christ.” Still others were saying, “Surely the Christ is not going to come from Galilee, is He? 42 Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the descendants of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was?” 43 So a division occurred in the crowd because of Him.

So the reality may have been that the placement in Bethlehem was a LATER invention when the objections to it (people who knew otherwise about where Jesus really was born) would not be nearly so strong.


Re the resurrection: Your comment is that a harmony began from day 1 that people were talking about it. Yet from my perspective that's exactly what the evidence doesn't show. This suggests to me that the early claims of actual resurrection APPEARANCES were not being made by the 11 disciples, but rather a few people. It may be that several or most or even all of the disciples believed that Jesus had been spiritually resurrected though, but the lack of harmonization suggests to me that there were not actual material appearances. If there had been I would expect extreme clarity on the idea that Jesus appeared to them BOTH in Galilee AND in Jerusalem, and not the exact opposite which we see in Matthew and Luke: Why would they seem to go in opposite directions?

I understand what you say and I appreciate your concerns. First of all it's only really that important to an interesting. I am not an internist. I can handle the idea that some of the accounts are wrong. So it's been a long time since that was an important issue for me.

I would agree if I didn't think that the implications of these differences are what they are. I think they imply that Jesus was NOT born in Bethlehem and that Jesus did NOT appear to his disciples while they were together. Wish I didn't though. I would much rather have faith that the Maker of this Universe has reached out to us.

PhilosopherJay wrote:Hi Metcrock,

As regards your statement, "you are untrained and you are trying to tell experts they don't know their stuff you are too ignorant to research it. there are tons of scholars who date Mark at 70 and don't believe in God. get your head on straight. you don't need this BS fake anti-thinking crap to be a skeptic."

I have a Ph.D. in Philosophy and I am well aware of both current standards and the history of scholarship.

classic case of unnecessary appeal to authority. If you did have a Ph.D. in Philosophy it would not give you any authority in textual criticism.

I have read every serious article up to about 2010 on the dating of the gospels.
If you have any serious arguments to make, please make them. The statements you have made so far are nonsense not even worth the time to type a refutation.

I am sorry. I don't mean to offend you but I don't believe you know the basics. It's obvious.. I documented every word of it you have not documented one thing. You have not made an argument. You have given me a single reason why the things I say are rejected. Is that you learned in Graduate school? flash a degree and pretend you know everything and don't bother to document?

it sounds impressive to the uninitiated to say you have a Ph.D. which I doubt, but if you do you are not very good in your field. probalby you don't. either way you have not given a reason why my statements are false or why they are not valid scholarship. all you have done is opposed views that I document with bluster and fables. you have not given a reason.

I educate people who are nice to me and wish to learn or people who pay me. I am afraid you fall into neither category.

I doubt seriously that you educate anyone becuase you clearly need education yourself.

Warmly,

you do not have warm feelings toward me that is phony as a 3 dollar bill.

you hate Christians you hate me becuase I love God.

Diogenes the Cynic wrote:There is no such thing as an "atheist assumption regarding the Gospels." You are confusing critical scholarship (which is mostly done by believers) with atheists.

that's stupid of cousre there are. atheists all say the same things, they believe the same thing.s they mark in lock step they spout an ideology they refuse to admit exists. I don't about your silly party line. I was an atheist.you can't fool me. I know what it is. it is an ideology. pull your head out!

Matthew and Luke's nativities are set ten years apart. There's no way around that. Bethlehem didn't exist in the 2TP.

this is propaganda. you have just been reading atheist websites and researched it for yourself. there s a ton of evidence that Bethlehem exited in fact it's Nazareth they say didn't exist. see when you disprove one of their little saws they move it over to another. when I first started on the internet thy were all saying Nazareth didn't exist. I proved it did. so now they all say Bethlehem didn't exist, that's BS. It's proved it did.

Nobody had to travel to their ancestral homes for a census. The census did not apply to Galilee anyway. Magi were not astrologers. There was no slaughter of innocents in Bethlehem by Herod. There was no Bethlehem and there was no reason he would have cared about some peasant baby anyway. Rome decided who the King was, not Zoroastrian priests from Persian and not the peasantry. Luke did not interview witnesses. His sources are Mark, Q and Josephus.

yes they did, evidence:

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/firstcensus.htm

In Luke 2.1-5 we read that Caesar Augustus decreed that the Roman Empire should be taxed and that everyone had to return to his own city to pay taxes. So Joseph and Mary returned to Bethlehem and there Jesus was born.

Several questions have been raised in the context of this taxation [1. See Bruce, Christian Origins, p. 192, for example]. Even if such a taxation actually did occur, would every person have to return to his home? Was Quirinius really the governor of Syria at this time (as in v.2)? Archeology has had a bearing on the answers to these questions.

It has been established that the taking of a census was quite common at about the time of Christ. An ancient Latin inscription called the Titulus Venetus indicates that a census took place in Syria and Judea about AD 5-6 and that this was typical of those held throughout the Roman Empire from the time of Augustus (23 BC-AD 14) until at least the third century AD. Indications are that this census took place every fourteen years. Other such evidence indicates that these procedures were widespread [2. Ibid., pp. 193-194]. Concerning persons returning to their home city for the taxation-census, an Egyptian papyrus dating from AD 104 reports just such a practice. This rule was enforced, as well [3. Ibid. p. 194].

.

The empty tomb story is not attested in the earliest Christian literature or ur-literature until at least 40 years after the crucifixion where it turns up in Mark. No empty tomb is attested independently of Mark. The other gospels get it from Mark and Mark says nobody knew about it because the women ran away from the tomb without telling anybody. Paul has never heard of an empty tomb. it's not in Q or Thomas or the creedal artifacts in Paul or Acts.

I don't know where you got that but I have proved that we can date the empty tomb story to mid first century. Jergen Danker and Helmutt Koester prove that.

It's in the stuff I quoted in this thread.

Koester writes, "John Dominic Crosson has gone further [than Denker]...he argues that this activity results in the composition of a literary document at a very early date i.e. in the middle of the First century CE" (Helmutt Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels 218).

Nothing in the Gospels comes from eyewitness accounts or claims to. Matthew and Luke copied their narratives from Mark. John is patently fictive with no interest in history.

go back up and read the stuff that I quoted at the top of the thread. I proved that you are wrong. It was in writing circulation mid century> it was called "the gospel of Mark" but it did exist.

http://www.doxa.ws/Bible/Gospel_behind.html

The Gospels are filled with anachronistic references which date them past 70, and likely into the 2nd Century (e.g John's aposynagogos, anachronistic references to rabbis and synagogues and seeming knowledge of Gnostics).

that doesn't matter. that's not a disproof of the basic material and outline of Christ's life that is testified in the Gospels.

I said I have seven levels of verification. you have not even discussed one of them.

stop quoting stuff websites and learn the facts.

Luke almost certainly uses Josephus Antiquities. I would also argue that Mark uses Wars.

\

No he doesn't. that's made up BS that atheist started so they can dismiss him as evidence.
Josephus homage guy has disproved it.most schoalrs don't accept that.

There is simply no good argument at all to date any of the Gospels before 70 and we know for a fact that Luke and Matthew copy Mark. This is not an "atheist" position, this is mainstream scholarship mostly done by Christians.

No that's not an atheist position it's also not evidence that the events didn't happen or weren't' being written mid century. There is no proof that Mark was written in 70. so what if Matthew and Luke copied him? if he wrote before 70s they may have written before then too. schoalrs are now moving all the dates back earlier.

the point is the mid century stuff to which I refer is prior to mark. that's why it's "pre mark redaction." get the "pre" thing?

Point of Order, Please!
Attention Metacrock:

I know PhilosopherJay. I have his book, Christs and Christianities, which I consult with some frequency. It is a worthy addition to any Library.
Jay can find more contradictions in a text than a Marxist in a Walmart.

You simply have no idea here. You are lashing out at Jay and I promise you that you do not have any knowledge of who he is or what he has done. I would sincerely advise that you back off and not try to bring AA Ball into the Major Leagues by arguing with Jay. I'm tellin' you: Don't do it.

It's time to either add something Constructive or drop off the Board.

CW