Diogenes the Cynic

Yes to all that, but it would have still had to occur to each author independently to distort the same passages. To make a modern comparison, it's like expecting two people to independently come up with the same altered photoshop gag of a picture of Obama. Relating Isaiah 53 to Jesus was not as intuitive as it sounds, especially since, as I said before, the servant does not die.

I actually don't think Mark even sees the crucifixion itself as atoning, just as a betrayal.

Duvduv

I'll meet you half way. The original writers of the gospels did not intend to write about a davidic messiah fulfilling prophecies including Isaiah 53. It was the subsequent editors or compilers who added in the nativity, the Baptist element, and Great Commission who gave it the flavor through their interpolations, but couldn't find a way to go as far as adding ".....as he fulfilled the Scripture in Isaiah 53 saying......." That would then be too much tampering. And I grant you that despite GJohn invoking his favorite book, Psalms, he didn't adopt the Davidic messiah theme too directly.
However, i still wonder what he thought about Malachi and Zechariah and Isaiah 40.

outhouse

your overthinking it.

Duvduv

In what respect??

outhouse

I dont think so, its actually visible by scholars as to what may or may not be later additions.

if you have evidence then please provide it so I can learn more, And correct my knowledge.

These roman authors far removed from actual events or real history did create quite a bit of mythology in original compositions, to explain the best they could what was important to them. All based on cross cultural oral tradition which in itself has no need or importance to stay on one evolutionary path when compared to oral tradition within a community with set beliefs that are not changing.

has no real historicity and is probably just be a roman retelling of their legend the way romans wanted it

the jewish movement failed soon after it sparked, much like a shooting star. we know very little if anything with any sort of certainty

Duvduv

Outhouse, I was just trying to offer an explanation in relation to the fact that the gospels do not use the verses as "in fulfillment of xxx prophecy" for a Davidic messiah which might have just been added by the nativity in GLuke and GMatt, and required the Baptist precursor.

Duvduv

What we can easily face is a scenario whereby there is no actual evidence for the existence of any alleged "communities" who authored the individual gospels or who adhered to individual gospels (or epistles for that matter), AND no actual evidence that the variety of NT texts were authored by a central religious body.

Therefore, we are back to the mystery of "Who Actually Authored the Various NT texts?"
The possible result being a variety of expressions to document oral teachings and ideas commissioned by the Empire leadership from various locations throughout the empire.

outhouse

if its anything like the early OT, these were private collections from diferent roman communities that followed the same mythology that grew from a possible historical core originating in judaism.

due te the cross cultural oral transmission, and time. very little would be left of the originality of the evolving traditions.

illiterate peasants who started it left no traces and we know they were hunted down like dogs.

even the roman empire was full of illiteracy, for this new group the mythology was needed in.

outhouse

all bets were off when the movement left judaism. there was no need to remain loyal to any prophecy, and definitely not a failed prophecy.

outhouse

at that time there was no religious body.


it was a wide and varied movement that was all over the board.


if much of the text were not lost to war and to the burnings in Constantines generation, we would have more knowledge of ho wthe evolution and progression took place.