Continuing my discussion of the “Jesus Tomb”, most of my religious friends, even the highly educated ones, remain committed to the accuracy of the Gospels as far as events described there being part of actual history.
They hold on to the belief that the authors were somehow eyewitnesses of the events they describe or at least wrote down the words dictated to them by someone (Apostle?) who was actually with Jesus when the events unfolded.
Going back to the chronology of the Gospels, Paul started writing his letters in 55 C.E. which is 25 years after the death of Jesus. Mark, the first Gospel was written around 70 C.E. or 40 years after the crucifixion. Mathew and Luke are dated around 85 C.E. or 55 years after Jesus’ death and John around 95 C.E. or 65 years after Jesus died.
If Jesus’ apostles were roughly his own age, they would have to be very old to write the Gospels or even dictate them and in the Roman age, life expectancy was not very high. Remember today’s life expectancy is 72, in Jesus’ time it probably hovered around 40.
I have found it helpful to change the dates discussed above to modern times. We can say Jesus was born in 1900 and died in 1930. The first written report about his life and his death appeared in 1970 and then others in 1985 and the final one in 1995. This dating trick allows you to experience the time differences in a more relevant fashion.
The other misconception still held by some of my friends is that the Gospels were actually written by the men the Gospels are named for: Mark, Mathew, Luke and John. Actually, all the Gospels were anonymous; they did not indicate the author’s name. In the Gospel of John, at the very end, the author indicates that the information for his Gospel was derived from a disciple whom Jesus loved - that disciple would have to have been near 100 years old.
When I bring out the fact that in Roman times 90% of the population could not read and that Jesus and his Apostles probably were illiterate, they tell me that the Jewish school system at that time was very good and taught all Jewish boys how to read and write. That simply is not the case since only the very wealthy could afford the teachers and the time to study. Plus the Gospels were written in Greek and not the Aramaic language of most Palestinians.
Greek was the language of choice in that era and Jesus and his Apostles probably knew Greek words just like we know some Spanish words to get us by.
So the Gospels are based on oral tradition as well as other sources available at that time. Mark is first and he used oral tradition as well as a Gospel called Q. Mathew and Luke used Mark as well as Q and John, well John was very different.
Oral tradition is the passing of information from person to person (by word of mouth) and in this case, for very many years and we know how accurate oral stories are when passed between a few people; how about hundreds?
I have always wondered if Mark’s Gospel existed why did Luke and Mathew think a need existed to write their own version – was Mark wrong?
I am afraid the Gospels cannot be trusted to be historically correct and there are many, many ways to challenge their historicity so I will go back to the time right after the crucifixion to see what can be known factually about that crucial time period.
See you next time…
They hold on to the belief that the authors were somehow eyewitnesses of the events they describe or at least wrote down the words dictated to them by someone (Apostle?) who was actually with Jesus when the events unfolded.
Going back to the chronology of the Gospels, Paul started writing his letters in 55 C.E. which is 25 years after the death of Jesus. Mark, the first Gospel was written around 70 C.E. or 40 years after the crucifixion. Mathew and Luke are dated around 85 C.E. or 55 years after Jesus’ death and John around 95 C.E. or 65 years after Jesus died.
If Jesus’ apostles were roughly his own age, they would have to be very old to write the Gospels or even dictate them and in the Roman age, life expectancy was not very high. Remember today’s life expectancy is 72, in Jesus’ time it probably hovered around 40.
I have found it helpful to change the dates discussed above to modern times. We can say Jesus was born in 1900 and died in 1930. The first written report about his life and his death appeared in 1970 and then others in 1985 and the final one in 1995. This dating trick allows you to experience the time differences in a more relevant fashion.
The other misconception still held by some of my friends is that the Gospels were actually written by the men the Gospels are named for: Mark, Mathew, Luke and John. Actually, all the Gospels were anonymous; they did not indicate the author’s name. In the Gospel of John, at the very end, the author indicates that the information for his Gospel was derived from a disciple whom Jesus loved - that disciple would have to have been near 100 years old.
When I bring out the fact that in Roman times 90% of the population could not read and that Jesus and his Apostles probably were illiterate, they tell me that the Jewish school system at that time was very good and taught all Jewish boys how to read and write. That simply is not the case since only the very wealthy could afford the teachers and the time to study. Plus the Gospels were written in Greek and not the Aramaic language of most Palestinians.
Greek was the language of choice in that era and Jesus and his Apostles probably knew Greek words just like we know some Spanish words to get us by.
So the Gospels are based on oral tradition as well as other sources available at that time. Mark is first and he used oral tradition as well as a Gospel called Q. Mathew and Luke used Mark as well as Q and John, well John was very different.
Oral tradition is the passing of information from person to person (by word of mouth) and in this case, for very many years and we know how accurate oral stories are when passed between a few people; how about hundreds?
I have always wondered if Mark’s Gospel existed why did Luke and Mathew think a need existed to write their own version – was Mark wrong?
I am afraid the Gospels cannot be trusted to be historically correct and there are many, many ways to challenge their historicity so I will go back to the time right after the crucifixion to see what can be known factually about that crucial time period.
See you next time…
Hello Janusz,
ReplyDeleteThere is a flaw in your assumptions about why the so-called gospels were written so many years later. First, the Dead Sea Scrolls show that the Essenes were prolific writers and their documents were in Aramaic and Hebrew. Secondly, because of this already proven reality, if the stories of "Jesus" ( Joshua...) are true, it is highly likely they would have been recorded in great detail in the 30 years between Jesus' supposed death and the 66 BCE revolt. Since the Essenes were prolific, AND failed to record anything about "Jesus," the most likely scenario is that these stories were created long after the fall of Jerusalem, as many researchers have asserted, by people who only pretended to be associated with purported apostles of Jesus. There are far too many errors in the New Testament for it to be the truth or reliable evidence, by itself. Yet, there are more twists to the story than most have suspected.
Here is Wisdom !!