0swy

What's the current 'state of play' on who might have wrote what when? I've been arguing with a believer that there are no countemporaneous accounts of Jesus and that the authorship of the Gospels is highly debated, and although I think I'm correct in saying this I don't know the details. I'm aware, for example, that some of the Gospels seem to copy from others and that at least one is generally understood to have been written by a succession of authors, but other than that I'm in the dark. Many thanks for any views.

Amaleq13

This is a good place to start for basic questions such as yours:

www.earlychristianwritings.com

Jobber

My recommendation is to not argue with this Christian because the answers are not clear and highly debated (as you have noted). One could spend 20 years studying this subject; many have. If you really want to have a discussion with this Christian about this subject, you must read, read, read. Encourage him/her to do the same.

Instead of throwing information in his/her face, I would recommend asking questions instead. Christians can be very defensive when challenged but the inquisitive approach often gets them thinking/questioning what they believe. Here are some good questions:

What books/articles have you read on the subject?
Why do you think that some writings are in the New Testament canon and others are not?
Have you read any of the noncanonical writings?
Have you read anything written by early Christians (2nd/3rd century) say about the gospels?
Do you think that any of the material in the gospels could be embellished information, since so many years passed before the gospels were put in written form?
Why are the genealogies of Matthew and Luke different?
Why do the crucifixion and post-Easter accounts differ between the gospels?
Why did God have four gospels written that don't always line up with one another instead of one complete and clear one?
Why do people think Matthew wrote Matthew? Mark? Luke? John? What have you read about this?

DCHindley

The commonly made assumptions are that the author of the gospel of Mark wrote first, and this account (or a version of it) served as the skeleton upon which the authors of the gospels of Matthew and Luke hung additional material, mainly sayings of and several stories about Jesus. I don't have the exact statistics on hand, but over half of G. of Mark is in both G. of Matthew and G. of Luke.

Besides the G. of Mark, Matthew and Luke seemed to have also shared one other source (or variant versions of this source) called "Q" (the first letter of Quelle = "Source" in German). They each also seemed to have had access to other sources peculiar to each (usually called "M" and "L" respectively).

Where the differences of opinion rage are in the date of composition of G. of Mark (ranging from 50-100 CE), and the relationships between the gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke. There is a strong minority faction making the case that assuming Q, and in the extreme case even Mark, as source(s) is not absolutely necessary to explain the similarities between the gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke. For those who accept the priority of Mark and that it was used as a source, some question the degree to which M & L are thought to have copied from Mark (some seems to be verbatim, other sections may be either paraphrased or just similar, etc).

The gospel of John is the one that may have gone through several revisions to get to its current state. The source of its historical framework is also not known for sure, although some suggest a form of G. of Mark. There may have been as many as three revisions by as many editors/authors. The chief proponent of this hypothesis was Father Raymond E. Brown, who has also written books on the birth and death of Jesus, plus a well-regarded introduction to the NT.

If anybody is serious about the notion that differences of opinion moot any question of complete authenticity (or inspiration, etc) of the NT, then this would also mean that we would have to completely discount the Christian story because 1,500 Christian sects also disagree over interpretation of, and the historical origins of, the NT books.

DCH

Amaleq13

IIRC, it is closer to 90%.

mountainman

The new testament authors did not bother to date their texts.
Literally millions of conjectures and hypotheses have been
formulated in regard to the identity of the authors, and in
regard to the dating of these texts.

If you were to totally ignore all this conjecture and hypotheses
(all being made without any concrete ancient historical evidence)
you will find that there are a grand total of two -- two only --
scientific carbon dating citations with respect to new testament
texts.

1) gThomas binding: 350 CE
2) gJudas binding: 280 +/- 60 years CE

In addition to these meagre pickings, you'll find that there is
another dating methodology known as paleography -- handwriting
analysis basically -- which, armed with its own sets of hypotheses
and assumptions, attempts to enter the (scientific) arena,
quite unsuccessfully IMO.

There you have it, IMO.

At the present day, we can be reasonable sure that the texts were
prepared as late as the fourth century. Everything else is heresay.

DCHindley

90% may be right if you look at the proportion of Mk represented in "either" Mt or Lk, but I recall 60% is reproduced in "both" Mt and Lk. The idea, as I understand it, is because Mk is hypothetically a source for both Mt & Lk, the more significant statistic would be the proportion of Mk represented in both Mt & Lk. 60% is still a lot. The additional fact that 90% of Mk is represneted in material that is in either Mt or Lk is icing on the cake for the hypothesis that Mt & Lk borrowed from Mk.

Also, don't forget that different researchers use differing definitions of what constitutes a parallel (exact copying vs same words in different grammatical forms vs vague allusions, etc).

DCH

Vorkosigan

Survey says..........

"Of 11,078 words of the text of Mark 8,555 are reproduced by Matthew and 6,737 by Luke." (Schelle, p169)

Both of you must take 50 lashes with soaking pasta for not looking up the answer. And I win! And collect $200 and go around Go! Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!

Vorkosigan

stuart shepherd

There is a story in John chapter 5 where Jesus heals a man at a pool with 5 porches or porticoes. There is archeological evidence that the 5 porches were part of a temple built to honor Asclepis, the greek God of healing by the roman Emperor Hadrian sometime around 125 CE. [I don't remember the exact date] This would date John's Gospel to a later time 95 years after Jesus, and certainly not written by the Apostle John.
Try Googling...but you will find that the Christians have loaded up the internet with propaganda so you can't find the tree you are looking for in the Christian forest.
As you read John 5, you can certainly see the pagan influence as the first in the water gets healed and healing has nothing to do with the God of the Bible. It really doesn't make sense in a Jewish or Christian context. The Jews would have protested having a temple where the first person in the water gets healed, so close to the temple mount unless this temple was built after the Jews were diminished in power, after the revolt of 70CE or after the Bar Korba revolt.

stuart shepherd

stuart shepherd

There is another Scripture which suggests a late date.
Matthew 28:15 (King James Version)
So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.

If this whole Jesus thing were true, I wonder why the apostles and disciples took so long to write anything down. If true, this was the most amazing event in history....someone doing fantastic miracles, dying and then coming back to life. I would expect Jesus' followers all to be writing this story down immediately so all the world would know.

stuart shepherd