HelmetWB

From The Oxford Bible Commentary --
"The Gospel of Mark …was written first and was then used as a source by Matthew and Luke… About the author of the gospel we probably know very little. Ancient tradition calls him Mark, almost certainly intending to identify him as the John Mark mentioned elsewhere in the NT, a member of the primitive Jerusalem church…[but]… It seems very unlikely, for example, that the author of the gospel was a Palestinian Jew. He appears to be rather ignorant about local geography… as well as about Jewish customs or laws... The view adopted in this commentary is that Mark is looking back to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE as an event in his past: hence Mark is to be dated after 70 CE (though probably not long after)."

After Mark comes Matthew, written no later than 100 CE, then Luke, then John.

Thus, the answer to the question Who actually wrote the Gospels? is--we don't know. However, Mark, the earliest gospel, appears to have been written at least several decades after the death of Jesus--and Mark was written by someone who did not know "local geography...[or]...Jewish customs or laws." Thus, we can surmise, written by someone who did not know Jesus in life. It also follows that we don't know where 'Mark' got his information. However, it appears to be the case that he was used as a source by the later gospel accounts.

offa

zachhanke, "Who Actually Wrote The Gospels?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In my never ending quest to find the truth, I have stumbled across many sites
that mention that the Gospels were never actually written by their supposed
authors (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Offa,

The gospels were written before A.D. 70. The authors were Matthew Annas
(Matthew), St. Peter (Mark), James of Zebedee (Luke), and John Mark (John).
=============================================

HelmetWB[B]

The view adopted in this commentary is that
Mark is looking back to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE as an event in his past:
hence Mark is to be dated after 70 CE (though probably not long after)."[B]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Offa,

HelmetWB's view is a false assumption leading "biblical scholars" down the road
to incorrect conclusions.

These conclusions about locations like Egypt, Galilee, and Jerusalem are
misleading. Moses was never in Egypt and his Mt. Sinai was another mountain.
Galilee is a location within the bounds of Jerusalem (of Today) and the Dead
Sea. There were more than one location called Jerusalem. The main location
Jerusalem was the location of the high priest Caiaphas' temple and the
secondary Jerusalem was a domain of the chief priests (Samaritans). The fall
of this secondary Jerusalem was in A.D. 33.

Another false assumption is about all these dead people. Jesus was crucified
and survived it. Lazarus was not really dead. Stephen was not killed nor
was James of Zebedee. Those 185,000 Assyrians in Kings II were not dead.
Those that were actually killed include John the Baptist, St. James, and
Agrippa I.

The first gospel written was John and that gospel was dictated by Jesus
himself. Saul of Tarsus met the living and breathing Jesus and made him into
a spook.

The four gospels were written long before A.D. 70.

dgully

Don't mean to jack your thread, but could someone recomend me a good book that discusses the history of the gospels, who wrote them, and the possible forgeries (later additions to text) within? thanks!

Steven Avery

Well we recently discussed the "local geography" claim and it became clear that the major claimed anomaly, Gerasa (which would in fact be a blunder showing ignorance of geography) only existed in the oddball alexandrian texts, and the vulgate, not the historic Byzantine/Majority text. Also the Peshitta is evidence of a 'smoothing' from the Byzantine reading, not the corn-fused alexandrian/vulgate error.

I do wonder if this is referenced by any early writers before Eusebius, who of course had to deal with the corrupt alexandrian texts, and wrote about the geographical question.

I'm not sure what Jewish customs or laws Tuckett is referring to in the Oxford commentary, but I consier the geographic of no substance.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

cliff999

These are different ideas. Where did you get them?

gregor2

Response to book request: Helms, Who Wrote the Gospels

Vorkosigan

Any good NT intro, some listed above in the sticky at the top of the column. There are also some good NT intros on the NT that will cost you nothing. Peter Kirby's http://www.earlychristianwritings.com has a huge list of online books that contain many intro texts from the previous generation that will be helpful to you. Or you could buy one of the modern introductory texts by Udo Schnelle, Raymond Brown, Bart Ehrman....

funinspace

My view is that there is no longer any way to know for sure either way on who wrote these Gospels. There are many Liberal Protestant Ministers that will also agree with this. Some of them even date John to 120 AD. Which kind of makes it improbable that John wrote it, if that date is correct. But the dating is also a big guessing game.

As far as books go, I like "A History of Christianity" by Paul Johnson ( a nominal Catholic). It spends about a third of the book on the early centuries of the Christian Church. It's also probably a book more aimed at laymen or more casual readers.