What ARE the "gospels?"

[Zzyzx]

.
Christian bibles contain works identified as "gospels", a term which means "an account describing the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth" -- and alternatively known as the "Good News."

Four of the gospels are referred to as Canonical Gospels (meaning a list of books considered to be authoritative scripture) and identified by the pseudonyms Mathew, Mark, Luke and John.

There are also Apocryphal Gospels (writings by early Christians that give accounts of Jesus and his teachings, the nature of God, or the teachings of his apostles and of their lives.

Christian denominations disagree on which writings should be regarded as "canonical" and which are "apocryphal".

There are other Gospels which are neither Canonical nor Apocryphal, including The Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Judas, and others.

1) Who were the gospel writers? Christian scholars and theologians acknowledge that the identity of gospel writers is largely unknown or disputed (i.e., we don't know).

2) When were the gospels written? Again Christian scholars and theologians acknowledge that the best anyone can do is an "educated guess" – ranging from 50 CE to 150 CE or later. Some gospels appear to have been written later than others and to have been at least partially copied from earlier works.

3) Did gospel writers personally witness the events and conversations they describe? There is no credible evidence that any gospel writers were personal eyewitnesses to what they write about.

4) How did gospel writers learn about the events and conversations? Nobody knows. Perhaps they heard things from others who had seen or heard? Perhaps they wrote from folklore, legends or fables. We just do not know. Was their information accurate? No one knows.

5) Do original copies of any of the gospels exist? No. The earliest copies available date from centuries after the events they depict.

6) Were the gospels changed over time? There is some evidence of changes in copying, editing, revision, insertion, etc; however, the extent of changes / editing / adding / etc is disputed.

7) Did gospel writers know one another? Possibly. They were at least familiar with others' writings (or used some common source) judging by identical long passages with exact wording.

8) Did gospel writers intend to write "The Bible?" No. They were writing for unknown audiences (perhaps early Jesus followers). There were evidently many early writings circulating during the early centuries. Some writings were selected as "official" by councils (meetings) of church officials under direction of Roman emperors. Those selected reflected predominant opinion of powerful churchmen (and acceptable to Roman authorities). Other writings were discarded or destroyed.

9) Do the gospels agree with one another? No. Even the Canonical Gospels give different accounts of significant events and conversations – particularly the Gospel of John. Some emphasize miraculous events and others do not mention miracles.

10) Were the gospels "inspired by God?" It might be more accurate to say that gospel writers were "inspired" (motivated) to write their thoughts about God. "Divine inspiration" is church tradition that cannot be shown to be truthful or accurate.

11) Are Christians in general aware of or concerned about these questions (let alone answers)? In my experience through these debates and in life experience, very few Christians appear to have considered any such questions or to have sought truthful and accurate answers.

12) If Christian preachers openly discussed these questions with their "flock" and gave honest answers (which they may well have learned in divinity schools), would people have a more realistic view of the gospels? In my opinion many would. However, that would probably be counter-productive for preachers' livelihood.


To the above twelve questions I have provided my answers. Feel free to disagree and debate the issues.

[1213]

1) Who were the gospel writers? Christian scholars and theologians acknowledge that the identity of gospel writers is largely unknown or disputed (i.e., we don't know).

That may be true. We probably don’t really know. But does it really matter? I don’t also know who really wrote the Origins of Species. Does that make the book wrong? Or if we would surely know that Gospel of Luke was really written by doctor named Luke right after those claimed events, would you then believe what the Bible tells? If we would know that surely, it would make it even more suspicious because if the accounts are true, we should not have much knowledge about the events, because disciples were allegedly persecuted.

I think your approach is pointless and don’t really lead to anywhere.

[Zzyzx]

.

1) Who were the gospel writers? Christian scholars and theologians acknowledge that the identity of gospel writers is largely unknown or disputed (i.e., we don't know).

That may be true. We probably don’t really know.

Thank you.

But does it really matter?

Many thinking people regard the identity of their sources of information as an important matter. They might consider such things as the veracity of the source, the respect shown the source by its contemporaries or others, the qualifications of the source regarding the issue being considered, the likelihood or possibility of the source having direct personal knowledge, etc.

I don’t also know who really wrote the Origins of Species. Does that make the book wrong?

Would it make any difference to you whether the writer actually did research, whether the writer was an experienced and respected biologist / naturalist? Would it make any difference that a source was well known as a fraudster, liar, braggart, incompetent who had not studied biology and who had not gone on a tropical cruise?

Or if we would surely know that Gospel of Luke was really written by doctor named Luke right after those claimed events, would you then believe what the Bible tells?

Knowing the true identity of "Luke" would allow me to consider such issues as: What did his "doctor" title mean or what did it generally mean in that era? Was "doctor" a faith healer, an herbalist, a witch doctor?

His profession alone would not be basis enough to accept words attributed to him as truthful and accurate (being a doctor does not insure honesty or accuracy); however, it would at least be a point of beginning. I would be more concerned about his reputation for ability and honesty – items which can be investigated for others of those times – Josephus, for example, who was a respected historian (even though some of his works were evidently altered by later copiers / transcribers / "editors").

If we would know that surely, it would make it even more suspicious because if the accounts are true, we should not have much knowledge about the events, because disciples were allegedly persecuted.

How would "persecution" of apostles (if it occurred) lead to "suspicion?"

If (since) we don't even know who wrote "Luke" or whether he was an "apostle" (which is disputed by Christian scholars and theologians) how is that related to "persecution?"

There is some indication that "Luke", whoever he may have been, was an associate of Paul/Saul – who himself did not know Jesus or witness events in his life (except via a claimed "vision").

So, now we have (probably) something written by an anonymous person who may have heard something from someone who did not witness the events or conversations personally but who claimed knowledge through a "vision."

Is that what should be considered credible? Would you accept as truthful and accurate that sort of source offered by a competing religion?

It seems inconsistent for a person who demands proof that the Earth is a rotating spheroid to NOT demand solid evidence that bible characters and stories are truthfully portrayed.

I think your approach is pointless and don’t really lead to anywhere.

It is not surprising that you think my approach is pointless. Bible believers often dislike having their vaulted "scriptures" questioned or having uncomfortable questions posed.

[Clownboat]

1) Who were the gospel writers? Christian scholars and theologians acknowledge that the identity of gospel writers is largely unknown or disputed (i.e., we don't know).

That may be true. We probably don’t really know. But does it really matter?

If a person does not care if their beliefs are true or not, it would not matter in the least to them about who wrote the material nor when. These types of people have a belief to maintain first and foremost. The who and when is unimportant.

If your beliefs on any given matter are based off of a book and you care if your beliefs are true or not, then the who/when becomes important.

Not sure what your point was though, it is already evident that there are those that accept claims without proper justification. Both religious and non religious claims.

The difference to me is the type of person. Some care more if their beliefs are true than others it seems. For some it seems, maintaining the belief is all that matters. True or not be damned.

[1213]

Many thinking people regard the identity of their sources of information as an important matter. They might consider such things as the veracity of the source, the respect shown the source by its contemporaries or others, the qualifications of the source regarding the issue being considered, the likelihood or possibility of the source having direct personal knowledge, etc.

I know that. But the problem is that it does not really change anything if we are told that the writer was some respectable person and you should trust to him, because we say so. I think it is not good when people accept things just because the words are allegedly said by some appreciated person. For example often people seem to think that everything that Einstein allegedly said is good and truth, because he said E = mc^2. Is it really reasonable to evaluate things by who said them? I think it would be better to evaluate claims or arguments by what is said, not by who said them.

Would it make any difference to you whether the writer actually did research, whether the writer was an experienced and respected biologist / naturalist? Would it make any difference that a source was well known as a fraudster, liar, braggart, incompetent who had not studied biology and who had not gone on a tropical cruise?

For me the contents is more important than who wrote it. If the text is reasonable, I can accept it, even if I don't really know who wrote it.

Knowing the true identity of "Luke" would allow me to consider such issues as: What did his "doctor" title mean or what did it generally mean in that era? Was "doctor" a faith healer, an herbalist, a witch doctor?

His profession alone would not be basis enough to accept words attributed to him as truthful and accurate (being a doctor does not insure honesty or accuracy); however, it would at least be a point of beginning. I would be more concerned about his reputation for ability and honesty – items which can be investigated for others of those times – Josephus, for example, who was a respected historian (even though some of his works were evidently altered by later copiers / transcribers / "editors").

But even if you would know that he was respectable and trustworthy, would you believe what he said? I don’t think so. You would probably rather think that he was just mistaken or something like that. That is why I think it does not really matter who said those things, because I don’t believe you would believe the message anyway. And if you would accept anything, if it is said by some authority that you like, I think it would be bad thing.

And actually I believe that in near future people will see “Messiah� who claims great things and shows great signs. People will believe him, because of the works and they will be lead astray. That is why I hope people would evaluate things by their contents and think about the matter by themselves, are the claimed things reasonable and good, not by are they said by man with fancy title.

Can you tell me why Josephus is respected? Is it because he doesn’t claim anything too difficult?

How would "persecution" of apostles (if it occurred) lead to "suspicion?"

I meant, Bible tells that disciples were not appreciated by the ruling elite. They were persecuted according to the Bible. If the history writers of ruling elite would then have told great things about them and would have given credibility to them, they would have acted contradictory to the Bible story and it would have made the Bible not as believable. Therefore, if Bible is true, we can assume that the message comes from those who are not appreciated by this world. If for example Luke would be highly appreciated historian by Romans, it would be illogical for the Bible text.

Would you accept as truthful and accurate that sort of source offered by a competing religion?

If person claims something, I like to have proof or evidence for that claim. Good arguments are often also enough for me to believe something.

It is not surprising that you think my approach is pointless. Bible believers often dislike having their vaulted "scriptures" questioned or having uncomfortable questions posed.

I don’t dislike your questions. I think they are just pointless, because even if we would know surely who wrote the Gospels, I think it wouldn’t make you believe what they said.

[1213]

If a person does not care if their beliefs are true or not,...

I want to clarify that I care are beliefs or claims true. I just think that arguments are not necessary true, even if they are said by some respectable person.

Or would you believe anything, if it is said for example by some professor, because “he is professor and surely know all better than anyone else�?

[Inigo Montoya]

Let's pretend we know exactly who wrote them. And let's pretend we know exactly when that person wrote them.

Now what? You're still being asked to accept, as true, unprecedented claims of the supernatural that fly in the face of everything we know today.

Should you choose to model your life based on stories in a book, so be it.

I have NEVER understood how or why folk do this.

As Carlin once said, "Tell the people there's an invisible man in the sky and they'll believe you. Tell them the paint is still wet and they'll have to touch it to be sure."

We toss all of our sense right out the window in exchange for a hint of purpose.

[Clownboat]

If a person does not care if their beliefs are true or not,...

I want to clarify that I care are beliefs or claims true. I just think that arguments are not necessary true, even if they are said by some respectable person.

Or would you believe anything, if it is said for example by some professor, because “he is professor and surely know all better than anyone else�?

Would this be an accurate statement then:
I 1213 care whether or not the gospels are true, but I don't care who wrote them nor when they were written, but I do care if they are true.

If no, please clarify. If yes, can you see how this is a bit confusing from the outside looking in?

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

What are the gospels?

That collection of tellings, Mother Goose didn't get at first.

Supporting data for such a conclusion - Have ya read either one?

Fantasy. Fable. "Poetic License". It's all the same - tell that which ain't true, so's you can introduce an "underlying truth".

Only don't it beat all, some of 'em don't care near much about that underlying truth, as they wanna declare that which ain't, well it is.

Religion. The god concept.

"Why?"

"Beats me."

"But you're the brains of this outfit."

"Would you believe, God?"

"Sold American!"

[Mithrae]

1) Who were the gospel writers?

2) When were the gospels written?

In the order of most confident to least confident...

Matthew - Unknown Jewish Christian author, writing c. 70-75CE

Of all the gospels, Matthew is the one which most strongly emphasizes a certainty that Jesus' return was imminent. All the synoptics have "this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place" (Mt. 24:34), but from Mark 9:1 Matthew changes the ambiguous "kingdom of God present with power" into "there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" (Mt. 16:28). He also adds "you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes" (10:23), which is not found in any other gospel. The only reasonable explanation for the author's supreme confidence in Jesus' imminent return is that the gospel was written soon after the seemingly eschatological events of the Jewish revolt and the temple's destruction. In Matthew 24:15 the author specifically draws the reader's attention to the writings of Daniel, which suggest that the Jewish temple would be destroyed in the midst of a final period of seven years (Dn. 9:26-27). It's extremely unlikely that Matthew's unique certainty of Jesus' return could have been written more than four or five years after that.

Canonical Matthew contains no real suggestion that it was written by an apostle, whereas there is strong evidence suggesting that it was not written by Matthew: The early 2nd century bishop Papias wrote that "Matthew put the logia in an ordered arrangement in the Hebrew language." But canonical Matthew is in Greek, not Hebrew, and is a complete narrative not just an arrangement of sayings. Moreover canonical Matthew copies extensively from Mark - some 90% of Mark is found in Matthew - and it's exceptionally unlikely that a disciple of Jesus would simply repeat the 2nd-hand stories of someone else rather than writing their own account.


John - By John, perhaps expanded by a 'Johannine community,' c. 80-100CE

John is the only gospel which claims disciple/eyewitness status (1:14, 19:35 and 1 John 1:1-3). That claim was confirmed by the author of the appendix (21:24), which again is a uniquely early source of evidence: It was apparently written shortly after the alleged disciple's death, since it seeks to downplay expectations that Jesus would return in a disciple's lifetime (21:22), an expectation which simply could not exist long after the disciples were dead. At least as early as the mid 2nd century, the gospel was accepted by such diverse veins of Christianity as proto-orthodox Justin Martyr (who counted it along with the other three amongst the "memoirs of the apostles") and the gnostics Ptolemy and Heracleon (who both attributed it to John). The historical attributions for its authorship are probably the strongest amongst the gospels, though legitimate debate arises over whether or not an original Johannine core was modified/redacted by a 'Johannine community' (some comments here). The book's frequent references to followers of Christ being 'put out of the synagogue' suggests both that it was written some time after the revolt, when Judaism (and Jewish Christianity) was in the process of defining itself in the absence of a temple, and that the author was probably a Jew who was somewhat bitter about the exclusion.


Mark - Interpretor of Peter, writing c. 65-75CE

It's almost universally agreed that the similarities between Matthew and Mark are best explained by Matthew copying from Mark, rather than vice versa. The early 2nd century bishop Papias wrote that:

• The Elder used to say: Mark, in his capacity as Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he recalled from memory—though not in an ordered form—of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to give his teachings in the form of chreiai,[Notes 1] but had no intention of providing an ordered arrangement of the logia of the Lord. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong when he wrote down some individual items just as he related them from memory. For he made it his one concern not to omit anything he had heard or to falsify anything.

The reasonable criticism is often raised that there's no proof that canonical Mark is the work being referred to here. But on the other hand, how likely is it that the early church would let the records of Peter's stories fade into obscurity?

According to the widely-accepted two-source hypothesis, the similarities between Matthew, Mark and Luke (and differences between Matthew and Luke) are best explained if Matthew and Luke each independently used material from Mark and a second source, the hypothetical Q sayings source. The theory has its critics, but if true then the sayings source may have been a translation of the Hebrew sayings which Papias attributed to Matthew, and Mark is consistent with his description of Peter's interpretor's work. This could help to explain why the genuine writings of Matthew are not known - it didn't disappear, it was just encapsulated into Luke and Matthew - and perhaps even why the latter managed to usurp the apostle's name.

Papias says that Mark wrote from memory, which Irenaeus (c. 180CE) more explicitly states as writing after Peter's death - said to have been in c. 64CE. Some later 2nd/early 3rd century authors say instead that Peter was still alive, or even that he explicitly endorsed the gospel, but the earlier traditions with less exalted origins for the work are probably more reliable: In fact that tendency to elevate the work's status suggests that the attribution to Mark is not mere fiction, for if it were fictional it would've been attributed to Peter instead.


Luke - Companion of Paul, writing c. 77-130CE

There is evidence that the author of Luke/Acts knew of Josephus' Jewish War (c. 75CE). Moreover in Luke 21:20 we find a clear hint of concern that Jerusalem's destruction might not be a penultimate eschatological event: Instead of referring to Daniel's 'abomination of desolation' as Mark and Matthew did, Luke writes only of Jerusalem surrounded by armies, and leaves an open-ended claim that "Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." Some folk argue that Luke was even aware of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews (c. 94CE), though I have since been dissuaded of that opinion.

Being addressed to a particular person (Theophilus) it's entirely possible that the author's name appeared on the original document. Various sources of the late 2nd/early 3rd century (Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and the manuscript P75) unanimously attribute it to Luke, and in the mid 2nd century Marcion evidently felt that the only gospel he could trust was one attributed to Paul's follower.

Marcion was a docetic - he believed that the earthly life of Jesus was in appearance only, not as an actual flesh-and-blood human. It's interesting that both of the latest gospels, John and (canonical) Luke, contain stories specifically intended to show Jesus' flesh and blood humanity even after his resurrection (Jn. 20:20&27 and Lk. 24:39). This is one of at least four similarities between John and Luke which are not shared with the other gospels, though I don't know what to make of that; whether one of them knew the other, or if they simply had access to some common set of traditions.
- only those two mention two angels at the tomb
- only those two have the risen Christ letting his disciples touch his flesh
- only those two mention the woman Martha and her sister Mary
- only those two use the name Lazarus (though in very different stories)