Huon

Mark - bi-lingual Aramaic/Greek interpreter; persecuted Gentile community; late 60's (Rome? later Alexandria?)

Matthew - Jewish-Christian scribe; educated community arguing with other Jews; 70's-80's (Galilee? Antioch?)

Luke - Gentile Christian historian; wealthier urban community becoming complacent; 80's (Antioch? Greece?)

John - Jewish Christian believers, in conflict with the "synagogue across the street"; 90's (Syria? later Ephesus?)

Found in a catho jesuit site. I think that the dates are too early.

Another quote :

Heinrich Bacht (1910-1986), Professor für Fundamentaltheologie an der Philosophisch-Theologischen Hochschule Frankfurt am Main :

Mark supposedly gives us a gentile-friendly story, Matthew plays up the Jewish angle, Luke is focused on post-apocalyptic catholicism and John is a co-opted gnostic.

Iskander

Are these the books ?


http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/loisy2/index.html

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/loisy/

sotto voce

sotto voce peut communiquer avec les morts? Loisy est défunt, Huon.

Though, like M. Sarto, he would be reluctant to talk to sv, I'm sure. Because Loisy was one of the early exponents of double talk. We had a special case of this recently, with Martini, who lambasted his own religion with fatal truth, yet still remaining part of it, even though on a death-bed of pomp and pretension. Martini ducked the interview, too.

It's Satan's Dilemma. If it is taken, pro tem., that he exists, Satan would prefer atheism. Of course; keep things simple. But the NT can make atheism look like wishful thinking. So the next best thing is Catholicism. Get the believers under the thumb of a pious pagan who tells them that Jesus didn't actually finish dying. Make them attend Mass and Confession, make them psychologically dependent and easily malleable. But who can believe in apostolic succession, in an informed world, and transubstantiation, in a scientific world, and Confession, in a democratic world? So it's back to atheism. Flip, flop. Flip, flop. All things to all men.

Who decided on the NT canon? Nobody did. Nobody ever has done. There is no authority to decide, and there never has been one. Some want to think so. Some want us to think so. Especially people who call themselves 'Pius', and 'Benedict'. Droll fellows, every one.

Who decided on the NT canon? Nobody did. Except you, dear reader, whoever you are. Chalk and cheese, eh? Because the NT can make atheism look like wishful thinking.

Duke Leto

It was the World Health Organization. They decided on the Christian Canon. To eradicate smallpox for great justice.

Huon

Yes,these are the english translations.

Huon

Here is another explanation, found at newadvent :
Gospel and Gospels

The explanation given by Irenæus is a mix of one good reason, and many other arguments, which have been added to enforce the paragraph.

Indeed, there are four important patriarchates, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, around 200 CE. Constantinople was made a patriarchate in 381. The title "patriarchate" is also relatively recent.

sotto voce

Bugs Bunny is more entertaining.

James The Least

They are in fact all "gentile-friendly" gospels -- written by and for Gentile audiences far removed from the hills of Judea. "The Jews" are simply cartoon characters, only in the story to be Jesus's foil, leading to the denoument of the crucifixion, and the ultimate "I told you so" moment when Jesus reappears after death. Matthew is not Jewish. He just has a better knowledge of contemporary Judaism, and is a more careful writer, than Mark.

sotto voce

I knew I shouldn't have mentioned Bugs Bunny.

outhouse

now that I agree with you on.

he was using the roman core of Gmark so you know he was not a strict jew in any sense.


and we know that god-fearers had different degrees of how much judaism they held on to, which changed from one geographic location to the next