Based on the understanding that that the Gospels were written ca 70 ce, is it reasonable to expect he writers were Jewish ?
From reading the gospels I've formed that impression that The Gospel writers didn't know a lot about Jewish custom or Mosaic law:
A couple of examples I noticed. I would hope the more erudite here would be able to think of more. Or simply tell me i'm probably wrong:
The women taken in adultery. She was being executed according to the law. Had Jesus had the gall to interfere, he could have also been stoned.
Jesus healed a man on the sabbath, a stoning offence .
This observation supports my position [if correct] that The New testament has little or anything to do with an historical person.
Very interested to learn the opinions of others .
I've given no references at this stage, I'm simply floating an idea.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
From what I know, Mark definately was not, but I believe Mathew corrected some of his mishaps?
No one knows who wrote the Gospels.
Mark: Mark's interactions are quite heated and that the portrayal of Jesus’ opponents is almost entirely negative (note the exception in 12:28). Some examples of these negative incidents may be listed:
Herodians: 3:6; 8:15; 12:13ff (also by inference 6:14-29)
Pharisees: 2:16; 2:2 4; 3:6; 7:1 ; 8:15
Sadducees: 12 :l 8-27
Scribes: 1:22; 2:6; 2:16; 3:22; 9:14; 12:28-34; 12:38-40
Elders: 8:31
Chief Priests: 10:32; 11 :l 8; 11 :27; 14:1,53-65; 15:31,32a
Calling him Jewish is fine; however, he was certainly against the status quo.
http://www.jcrelations.net/The+Gospel+of+Mark+and+Judaism.2208.0.html?L=3
Thanks for that.
Yair, the gospels are quite vicious about the Jewish authority figures An entirely different view than Ehrman ( I think, not certain) and from that of A N Wilson in "Paul: The mind Of The Apostle"
Easy to see from whence comes a lot of christian antisemitism in the last 1500 years or so .
Of course, I've had a "'trained biblical scholar" tell me Wilson is only a popular writer and not reliable. I think his books are well researched and scholarly, but what would I know .
Right now im reading Nailed- ten Christian myths that show Jesus never existed, and it has a good base bare bones guide to the authors of the gospels and who they could be
Curremtly re-reading and studying Spong's Resurrecting the New Testaments. Just finished
Mark now working on Matthew. The authors are a mixed bag of hellenised Jews. Mark doesnt seem to know much about Judaism as Mstthew. Mark might well have been an early gentile convert. He doent like scri es or Pharisees much.
Matthew doubled the length of his gospel over Mark who only covers 6 months of the Jewidh annual liturgy. Matthew knows more about Jewish customs and laws including those little paper boxes the men wear in the synagogue etc
Luke beinv later is more cosmopolitan who avoids the agricultural items and conservstive Jewizh rituals. Thats all I've covered to date. But yes they were jews culturally in degree.
The woman taken in adultery where Jesus writes names in the dirt and invites the first without sin to open the bowling? That story as I have read was added somewhere in the 1200s? Much later in any case...before the numbering of chapter and verse in the 1500s. An interpolation.
I believe therr was a jewish guy called Yeshua who had a following. I believe everything written of him is pure myth.
HI Mikhail
'Mark' was a heavily Hellenised Jew or a gentile convert in the Pauline (no physical circumcision or observances) tradition.
'Matthew' seems to have been an orthodox jew, in his work the many and repeated mistakes in Matthew regarding Jewish lore, Law and observance were corrected. He was writing for a Jewish audience.
'Luke' (the latest of the writers) has traditionally been regarded as a gentile, hellenised or fully greek. His gospel repeats all the errors of 'Mark' without correction. His writing shows a very strong Greek influence.
Early versions of both Matthew and Luke did not contain the birth narrative.
Early versions of Mark did not contain the physical resurrection story.
'John' (again seemingly non jew pair or quadruplet of authors) write in an entirely different style and embellish both Mark and Luke with introduced characters and apocryphal anecdotes. John appears to be written some 20 to 40 years AFTER the gospels of Mark and Luke from which they derive an influence.
All the gospel authors (and there were many more than just four if we count all the other texts, alterations, interpolations, margin notes, redactions that we know of today) are anonymous.
In fact the only gospel with any sort of provenance is the Gospel of Thomas (Didymus) The St. Thomas Evangelical Church is one of several groups of Saint Thomas Christians tracing their origins to St. Thomas the Apostle who, according to sacred tradition, came to India in AD 52. Wiki
Of course, when the Portuguese arrived in the 16th century CE they were all declared heretic and may texts and traditions were lost.
Naturally the Gospel of Thomas is declared anathema by the 'church' and so cannot be used in its defence of 'historicity' of its origins.
Follow the trails, Mikhail, follow the evidence. Use the historical method I have posted many times on these forums:
“Depending on the degree of importance of knowing the truth of something we make sure we are being told the truth by checking such things as:
Who is telling us this?
How do I know if I can trust them?
Can their claims be confirmed somehow?”
How do I know if this document is genuine?
Good luck!