Godwithus

Neutrally speaking, whoever wrote the NT sure did have a lot of pro-Israeli sentiment.


Jesus

If written by the anti-Israel Church, why would that be in the text?

Also critics claim that Jesus end times sermon was about AD 70. But he said that during that event he would return...obviously a false prophecy if indeed about AD 70....But why would authors writing from the 3rd century include such a blatant false prophecy in the Gospel after the fact?

So you have a few choices. Claim that it was written before, hence the false prophecy...but would give the texts an earlier dated before AD 70....written afterwards, which would show that it was not about AD 70, which would also show that the writers were expecting a pre-Messianic restoration of Israel.


Take your pick.

Sheshbazzar

As I wrote earlier it really doesn't matter how early the earliest scripts or book of the NT reached the market.
Personally, I believe the process of composing the first NT script was actually undertaken as early as 168 BCE , and even then it was intended to be a connected sequel to the earlier scripts. (scriptures=writings)

I believe these nascent NT scripts were being midrashed by Hellenized Jews in conjunction with the Ger-Toshavim, (religious 'Strangers of the gate') that is Gentile adherents of the Jewish form of religion, (whom incidentally were not bound to keep any of the ceremonial components of the Law of Moses) being informed by the LXX text.

Both the terms Jesus ('Joshua') and 'christ' (anointed) would have been familiar to these students of the LXX . It was a simple and natural thing to conclude that the scriptures promised coming messiah ('christos' Gr.) would be named 'Joshua' ('Jesus' Gr.), other elements of his 'birth', 'prophecies', 'life' and manner of 'death' were naturally drawn from and consistent with the messianic ('christ') texts of the LXX.

Godwithus

So you believe the texts were written in 168 BC entering the markets much later? But werent the Hellenized Greeks opposed to the teachings of Yeshua the Christ?

Sheshbazzar

Not fully written in 168 BCE, but the beginning of a natural progression undertaken, and extensively midrashed by a group of -cooperative- religious Jews and Gentiles.
Yes there were such friendly relations back then. Jews employed Gentiles, and Gentiles employed Jews in peaceful co-existence and harmony, when they weren't being terrorised or ostracised by warring factions. (just like in Israel today)

Again I would stress that recognition held by both parties that the believing Gentiles were not bound by the Jewish ritual Laws.
Principally an understanding and acceptance of the premise that Gentiles could believe and yet never need undergo circumcision to be acceptable to and 'saved' by YHWH, simply because of the fact of their being 'Gentiles'
And 'salvation' was promised to the Gentiles -along with- the Jews. If a Gentile were 'converted' and became a Jew, then he was no longer a Gentile, thus voiding the promise of the Scriptures. Some don't 'get it'.

The written NT texts, in response to an oppressing political situation, growing unrest, and dissatisfaction with the increasingly irrelevant, strict and oppressive legalism of the 'Establishment' Jewish Priesthood, were finally released to the general public sometime in the mid 1st century CE.

The 'Hellenised Greeks' (I presume you mean Hellenised Jews) who opposed the Gospel message, that you are thinking of, are those who came latter and had had no part in the development of the NTs writings.


.

Godwithus

so which NT book was written in 168 BC?

Sheshbazzar

None,
Only prepratory midrashim, meaning ('that which is explained')
They sat down together and undertook the task of mutually 'explaining' their collective 'Jewish' and 'Gentile' ideas and interpretations of the LXX texts,
sorting out what each group believed to be the essentials for salvation, both groups preparing for the 'coming' of the long expected 'christ'.
The great King who would at last bring Peace and prosperity to the ends of the earth.
Their midrashim and writings would increasingly focus upon that, by natural progression of writing out what was expected to 'come to pass' there came the growing conviction that the promises HAD came to pass. No one 'lied' no one 'deceived', all was a work of faith and of honest conviction by men filled with hope.
And at last 'Christ' was born in Galilee of the Gentiles......'In fulfillment of that which was written in the Prophets'

dog-on

Gott mit Uns,

Read Mark and ask yourself who, in the story, gets it.

You will find that the answer is, invariably, not the Jews.

Read Paul and ask yourself, who gets it. I think you will find the same answer.

As Toto pointed out, the later gospels seem to have another agenda, perhaps as a response to Marcion, so the issue of "who gets it" becomes a bit more nuanced.

Doug Shaver

It was written by several people, and they did not all have the same sentiments. Not all skeptics believe that the NT was the product of some conspiracy. The authors did not all believe the same things and did not have any common agenda.

If the author of the genuine Pauline letters was a Jew, which I find to be an entirely reasonable supposition, then of course he would express some pro-Israelite opinions.

As for the gospels, I regard them as works of fiction. Just because comments favorable to Israel are put into the mouths of certain of the characters, it does not follow that the author himself believed those comments or expected his readers to believe them.

bacht

The official answer would be that Christianity started among Jews (James, Peter et al), or at least among gentile synagogue attendees (eg Paul's converts).

The complication comes from the gnostics, of whom many rejected the OT God in favour of a new diety lately revealed, or ancient figures re-vivified like Seth or Enoch. As pointed out, it was Marcion who really goaded the proto-catholics to organize themselves and their beliefs into a universalist church, rather than the elitist style of the gnostics.

By the 140s the Jews were out of Judea and were busy organizing their own traditions in the wake of the temple's destruction. The Mishnah is roughly contemporary with the first Catholic canons.

Sheshbazzar

Again, I stress the need for plot continuity, if the writers wanted to build their sequel on the well known established popular OT stories, even if their intent was to direct the sequel into new and entirely different directions, it would be absolutely imperative to incorporate and to maintain the integrity of the previous script tures.
Any attempt to have proceeded otherwise would alienate the audience and critics, and permanently relegate any such non-conforming sequel script to the dust bins of obscurity.

It is my belief that the 'Sayings' and 'Q' documents were being midrashed in a mixed ethnic/social environment for close to a hundred and fifty years, finally being redacted and coalesced into into the first proto-Markian texts, which once released into the public arena became the seminal NT script upon which other writes could expand, formulating additional details and plot twists to suit their own creative urges and serve their own particular political views and agendas.

This initial proto-'Mark' had evolved out of a long term peaceful and -cooperative- effort carried on by a somewhat clandestine group of devout and believing Jews and Gentiles working and midrashing together hand in hand 'under the radar' of the large contentious sects and the Official Priesthood.

When the fruit of their labors, proto-Mark, was finally introduced to the public, the next generation of continuators and script emenders quickly introduced a series of small textual changes and modifications that favored the Greeks, and tended to marginalise the Jews.

Anyway, this initial proto-Mark would not have as yet been identified as 'The Book of Mark' as we have it, and would have differed in a great many details from the 'version' of 'Mark' that we are now familiar with.

As far as not finding an original proto-Markian manuscript, it is quite possible that less than a dozen or so were ever completed in their initial form.
(maybe even being a 'one of one' original)
As these messianc ('christ') scripts were not yet accounted as, or as yet recognised as being 'Scripture', or 'authoritative', not even by their writer(s),
they would have been subject to ongoing emendations and modifications for decades by series of Markan writers.