Jesus would be a historical figure. Modern historians and students agree. That informs us something, but not a great deal. Did the Gospel writers go ahead and take real man, Jesus of Nazareth, and embellish him with your things as a virgin birth, miracles, sinless life, voluntary martyr’s death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven?
Most tell you today that is exactly what happened. Doesn’t that seem to be the most reasonable explanation? Those “added features” seem unnatural; they seem unnatural. They actually aren’t the rock-hard reality we encounter everyday.
What exactly will Cantor use those grandiose claims of Jesus? He said he’s the Son of God! Could a guy with a sound mind state that about himself? And we keep running into miracles, including raising the dead; and he himself was reported as resurrected from the grave. Not to mention addititionally there is the virgin birth. Doesn’t the inclusion of supernatural elements result in the entire story questionable?
You are aware how it’s when stories are passed around. Just a little enhancement here, just a little trying out the facts there, and in a short time there is a story full-scale of proportion to that from the original. By the time Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were placed on paper, tall tales were well-established areas of the storyline.
However, we now realize the Late-date-for-the-Gospel theory was flawed from the beginning. The situation for it wasn’t based on evidence. It was mere speculation, speculation to permit sufficient time for the legend surrounding Christ to develop. The reality involved inform us another story. What evidence we are able to muster has a tendency to confirm early dates for Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Papias and Irenaeus Discredit Late Gospel Theory
In A.D. 130, Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, quoted The Elder (the apostle John) as stating that Mark accurately recorded Peter’s statements regarding Jesus’ actions and words. Since Mark had not personally witnessed the events, however, they were not written in chronological order. However, Mark was scrupulously faithful to Peter’s teachings. Nothing added, nothing omitted.
As you can see, Papias strongly endorses the book of Mark. The succession might be wrong, but, he assures us, fundamental essentials very words of Peter.
Irenaeus was the bishop of Lugdunum (what’s now Lyons) inside a.D. 177. He would be a student of Polycarp, the Standards of Smyrna who was burned in the stake in A.D. 156. Polycarp in turn was a disciple from the apostle John.
Irenaeus lets us know that, “Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own individual dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and laying the principles from the church. After their deaths (Paul approximately A.D. 62 and 68 and Peter in regards to a.D. 64), Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, handed down to us in writing what have been preached by Peter. Luke, follower of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple from the Lord himself, produced his Gospel while he was living at Ephesus in Asia.”
Papias agreed saying, “Matthew recorded the ‘oracles’ in the Hebrew tongue.” All of the early church leaders say the same task, namely, Matthew was the very first written Gospel. When was it written? Irenaeus indicates it had been probably manufactured in the first A.D. 60s. Mark’s Gospel followed Matthew, Luke wrote third, and John composed his narrative some time later.
Spot the real significance of Irenaeus’ comments. None of the Gospels ever experienced a number of oral hand-me-downs. He assures us the apostle Matthew wrote his own account of what he’d been sent. Likewise, the apostle John produced a manuscript of the items he himself had witnessed. The apostle Peter preached. Mark wrote down his words, and wrote them down accurately too, based on Papias. At the same time, Luke recorded what he heard from Paul.
Irenaeus was just the second generation from the apostle John. In time as well as in acquaintances, he was very close to the reality. He explained the only oral tradition in Mark is what Peter told Mark; the only oral tradition in Luke is what Paul told Luke. In Matthew and John, the oral tradition was not an issue whatsoever.
But what concerning the oral tradition anyway? The very first century was an oral society. Yes, they had writing, however it was primarily a spoken word tradition rather than a paper based society like our own. We do not rely on our memories as much as they did within the first century. We jot it down and make reference to it later, or we glance it to the pc. It’s easier that way.
But before age the printing press, books or scrolls were too expensive for the average man to own. Whatever one needed or desired to know, he had to hold around in his head. That required a great memory.
Gospel Authorship and Dating
Gospel of Matthew
The Gospels themselves contain a number of clues giving us a rough concept of once they were written. Matthew is a great one. The first church fathers were unanimous in attributing the work to Matthew, the tax collector who left his job to follow Jesus. His occupation required him to help keep records, therefore it doesn’t surprise us that he had the opportunity to write.
We discover his Gospel had a distinctive Jewish style and character. According to both Papias and Irenaeus, the very first edition was designed in the “Hebrew tongue.” It’s a Jewish book compiled by a Jew for any Jewish audience.
The author starts by tracing Jesus’ ancestry back to Abraham, the patriarch. Throughout his narrative, Matthew is continually pointing out how Jesus is fulfilling a Messianic prophecy. His goal is to convince Jews, Jesus may be the Messiah and the Son of God according to documents they consider beyond reproach.
Matthew feels you don’t need to explain Jewish customs, that is reasonable if he is addressing Jewish readers. Also he uses such Jewish euphemisms as “Kingdom of Heaven” and “Father in Heaven.” Jews were reluctant to even mention the name of God. Consequently, these terms were common substitutes within their vocabulary. And just what may well be more Jewish rather than speak of Jesus because the “Son of David?”
The exclusive Jewish character of Matthew suggests it was composed shortly after Jesus’ crucifixion, a period when the Christian movement was almost entirely Jewish.
In the 1996 book Eyewitnesses to Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About the Origin of the Gospels, Carsten Peter Thiede, A German papyrologist, analyzes three small scraps of Matthew chapter 26 from Magdalen College at Oxford University.
He found several ancient documents which were comparable in both style and technique: the Qumran leather scroll of Leviticus, dated to the center of the first century; an Aristophanes papyrus copy of Equites (The Knights), dated late first century B.C. to early first century A.D.; and incredibly enough, an Egyptian document actually signed and dated by three civil servants July 24, 66.
Based on these close comparisons, Thiede concludes the three tiny fragments of Matthew chapter 26, known collectively as the Magdalen papyrus, date no after A.D. 70. As we have already noted, both Irenaeus and Papias claim the original Matthew manuscript was at Hebrew. Obviously, the Hebrew original should have predated this papyrus Greek translation.
Gospel of Luke
Perhaps the least controversial author of the Gospel writers is Luke. Most agree the physician and often traveling companion of Paul, wrote the Gospel that bears his name, that’s, the Gospel of Luke.
That book is a companion volume towards the book of Acts. The language and structure of these two manuscripts indicate these were compiled by exactly the same person. And they were addressed towards the same individual — Theophilus. Luke’s authorship is based on early Christian writings such as the Muratorian Canon A.D 170 and the works of Irenaeus in A.D. 180.
Luke appears to be a well-educated gentile. His writings show he’s fluent in Greek. Sometimes his style even approaches that of classic Greek. Each of his books are rich in historical and geographical detail. As others have seen, this physician writes like an historian.
Luke tells us that the number of people had already written about Jesus’ life. However, he’d like to set the record straight and correct the errors he present in those early reports. To split up fact from fiction, Luke conducts a personal investigation interviewing eyewitnesses and verifying oral accounts using the apostles. In his own words, he investigated from the beginning to write an orderly report for Theophilus to ensure that he or she is clear on the things he’d been taught. (Luke 1:3-4)
Indirect evidence suggests Luke wrote Acts in the early A.D. 60’s. Acts is really a good reputation for early Christianity that was centered in Jerusalem. Nevertheless, there isn’t any reference to Jerusalem’s destruction which took place A.D. 70.
Likewise, there is nothing mentioned of Nero’s persecution of Christians inside a.D. 64, nor will it tell of the martyrdom of the three major characters in the book: James, brother of Jesus, A.D. 62; Peter A.D. 64; and Paul a while from a.D. 62 and 68.
On the other hand, Acts does inform us from the deaths of two less prominent figures: Stephen, the very first known martyr, inside a.D. 36, and the apostle James, son of Zebedee and brother of John, in A.D. 44. According to this indirect evidence, there’s reason to believe Acts was composed inside a.D. 62 or earlier. Acts is definitely an obvious continuation of the Gospel Luke. Therefore if Acts were written by Luke no later than A.D. 62, the Gospel of Luke was probably recorded before that time, presumably in the late 50’s.
Carsten Thiede talks about a codex papyrus of Luke’s Gospel found at the Bibliotheque in Paris. After evaluating the original document, the papyrologist decided it had been from the first century A.D., only slightly over the age of the Magdalen Papyrus.
Later Embellishment Theory
Before we leave Luke, there’s another item which must be mentioned. Skeptics, you’ll recall, think that all those miraculous events were just fictitious inventions tacked to the original writings centuries later. Luke discredits their “later embellishment” theory.
In Acts 2:22, he quotes Peter’s sermon to the Jews at Pentecost: “Men of Israel, hear me. Jesus of Nazareth was designated by God and made known to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did among you thru him.” Peter followed that track of: “. . . you, with the help of wicked men put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead . . . . God has raised this Jesus alive, and we are all witnesses from the fact . . . . God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” (Acts 2:23-24, 32, and 36)
Peter said in effect: You yourselves saw Jesus perform miracles. That wasn’t just a man you crucified. Which was your Lord and Christ. What’s more, that Man did not stay dead. God brought him back to life. We all know that for a fact. We view him with this own eyes; heard him with this own ears; why, we even ran our fingers over his crucifixion wounds. He’s alive. And he’s back!
The interesting point here is how everyone else reacts. If modern skeptics were right, that’s, those incredible supernatural events never really happened, we would expect the crowd to state something to the effect: Who are you kidding? That man never performed any miracles! And he’s dead. We saw him die. Forget him, Peter. Go get a lifetime of your own.
However they didn’t say that. Instead: “They were cut to the heart and said: ‘Brothers, what should we do?'” (Acts 2:37) They’d seen Jesus’ “miracles, wonders, and signs” and Peter used that knowledge to transform those Jews to Christianity.
Something else. Notice that Peter doesn’t be put off by Jesus’ resurrection. In fact, it’s the focal point of his speech. Remarkable is it not? Three thousand of these listening to Peter’s words accepted the apostle’s eye witnessed account. We read, “Those who accepted (Peter’s) message were baptized contributing to 3,000 were added to their number on that day.” (Acts 2:41)
Peter, John, and Paul all made use of firsthand evidence within their writings. Peter said: We didn’t constitute stories whenever we told you concerning the power and introduction of our Lord Jesus, but i was eyewitnesses of his majesty. (2 Peter 1:16)
John reads: We let you know what we have experienced and heard to have fellowship around. And our fellowship is by using the daddy and his Son, Jesus Christ. (1 John 1:3) John is talking about himself as he known the witness of Christ’s death: “We know this is correct, since it was told by somebody that saw it happen. You can now have faith too.” (John 19:35 CEV)
Also Paul, in speaking to Festus and King Agrippa, tells them that Christ did exactly what Moses and the prophets said he would do, that is, he suffered, died, and was raised in the dead. Festus immediately questioned Paul’s sanity. But Paul responds: “What I’m saying is affordable and true. The king is familiar with this stuff and I can speak freely to him. I’m convinced none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not completed in a corner.” (Acts 26:25-26)
Again, spot the reaction. The interesting thing here is what King Agrippa did not say. He didn’t say: This is the craziest thing That i have ever heard about Paul. It’s been my experience that dead people tend to stay dead!
That is what we should would expect Agrippa to say, unless, unless he knew something out of the ordinary had place. Paul made three startling claims here: First, Jesus was the long awaited Messiah and the fulfillment of prophecy. Second, Jesus was resurrected from the grave. And maybe more and more extraordinary, Paul himself states have seen and heard the resurrected Jesus on the path to Damascus.
Amazingly enough, King Agrippa doesn’t laugh at, ridicule, or get angry at Paul’s “outrageous” claims. Apparently, Agrippa missed the remarks outrageous. He merely replies, “Do you think that in this short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?” (Acts 26:28)
Gospel of Mark
The Gospel of Mark was very likely composed inside a.D. 50’s or even the early 60’s. Based on early church tradition, Mark was written in Rome where Peter spent the final times of his life. Romans crucified Peter inverted inside a.D. 64.
Mark has been written for any gentile audience, possibly a Roman audience. Unlike Matthew, he explains Jewish customs and translates Aramaic words for his readers. Also Mark shows a special interest in persecution and martyrdom – subjects of crucial importance to Roman believers of his day.
Mark’s work was readily accepted, also it spread rapidly throughout Christianity. Some believe the main reason it had been distributed so quickly happens because it originated in Rome.
A papyrus scroll fragment of Mark 6:52-53 called 7Q5 was excavated from Qumran Cave 7. “It must be dated before A.D. 68 and may easily be as soon as A.D. 50,” claims Carsten Thiede.
Although the early church said Matthew was the first Gospel, many today think Mark wrote his account first. They base their judgment around the fact that Mark’s book is shorter and far of what he said are available in the Gospel of Matthew.
Scholars are inclined to say it was much more likely that Matthew would expand on Mark’s text rather that Mark would condense and then leave out parts of what Matthew wrote. Besides, all what Mark wrote supposably came directly from Peter.
The assumption is the fact that one copied in the other, but independent origins really are a distinct possibility. The question remains, why would an authentic apostle of Christ need to rely on anyone else to inform him what Jesus said and did?
Both writers probably used exactly the same oral tradition for memorized accounts of Christ’s sayings and actions. It is certainly inside the arena of possibility these odds and ends of information had already found their distance to writing before Matthew and Mark composed their Gospels. The Gospel writers arranged and shaped those commonly known stories and sayings of Jesus in to the more comprehensive narratives which bear their names.
Whichever Gospel was initially, there’s general consensus that both Matthew and Mark appeared before Luke unveiled his Gospel. That puts the probable dates of both early compositions somewhere within the A.D. 50’s. The functional point here’s the period from Jesus’ death towards the first three Gospels is simply too short for the introduction of myths and legends.
The virgin birth, miracles, and also the resurrection counseled me there right from the start. Those “incredible” supernatural events were an intricate area of the original story.
Many saw and remembered Jesus’ miracles, and also over five-hundred people saw the resurrected Jesus one time. Early Christianity trusted this well known for recruiting new members. The apostles noticed that this resurrected miracle worker was both Lord and Christ. As Peter demonstrated at Pentecost, it had been a very persuasive argument.
Gospel of John
The apostle John “the disciple whom Jesus loved” may be the author. He describes “the disciple whom Jesus loved” six times without naming the name. He was prominent in early church, but his name isn’t mentioned within this Gospel. That is among the little oddities of his book. “The disciple whom Jesus loved” would be a “natural” if somewhat coy way of talking about himself if John were the writer. Otherwise, it’s impossible to describe.
The Gospel of John has a quantity of personal eyewitness touches for example recalling the fragrance of Mary’s pure nard perfume which she poured on Jesus’ feet in the house at Bethany. Its keep may be the episode of Jesus writing in the dust with his finger when they brought him the woman caught in adultery.
C.S. Lewis highlights that the significance of this “dust writing” is it has no significance. Whether it were a tale, it might be the objective of a realistic prose fiction which never actually existed prior to the eighteenth century. To quote Lewis: “Surely, the only explanation of this passage would be that the thing really happened. The writer place it in simply because he had seen it.”
Two early Christian writers, Irenaeus and Tertullian, both claim that John the apostle composed this Gospel and also the internal evidence concurs. Traditionally, it has been dated around A.D. 85. Recently, some scholars have suggested an early on date, even right down to the 50’s with no later than the 70’s. One little bit of internal evidence is John 5:2, where John uses the current tense “is” rather than “was” for a pool close to the Sheep Gate. That implies a period before A.D. 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed.
In 1935 a little fragment from the Gospel of John was found and dated at A.D. 125. Method . the John Ryland Manuscript. One side quotes John 18:31-33, and the other sides shows verses 37-38. The significance of this find is difficult to overstate, since it helps to read the traditional date of this Gospel within the first century. Before this discovery, there is a movement among scholars to put the original composition date around A.D. 170.
There is an academic discipline called “Textual Criticism.” When the original document is lost, textual critics compare all available copies to try to piece together what the original document probably said. In general the more manuscripts available and also the closer they date towards the original, the better. The New Testament scores well on points.
New Testament books give a insightful material for the text critic scholars to evaluate: 5,147 ancient manuscripts, over 10,000 translated scripts into Latin Vulgate, and numerous other translations, along with a large range of early scripture quotations by the church fathers. The majority of the differences in the copies are minor variations for example word order, spelling, grammar, or stylistic details. However, some variations make a difference. The United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament lists 2,040 sets of word variations they believe Bible translators should think about.
Does that appear to be a large amount of disagreement? Actually, it represents a very small area of the New Testament scriptures. However the important point is this: The unanimous opinion among text scholars remains intact; no disputed words affect any doctrine from the Christian faith.
Realistically that’s the best Christians could hope for. The same textual criticism which analyzes all ancient text confirms the substance of the New Testament text. The traditional text experts inform us the brand new Testament account we’ve today is basically the same message the authors recorded over nineteen centuries ago.
Article resource: http://EzineArticles.com/455795