WHEN & HOW the Gospels were written

[Aaron]

. . . it is against the rules of BB to question someone's salvation.

Where is this written?

 

[saturneptune]

Where is this written?

I believe it is under the rule that talks about being slow to anger and offensive names, but Bible Boy, the forum moderator, can point you to the exact place. Since none of us as humans knows the true state of someone's heart (only God does), it seems like common sense to me.

 

[npetreley]

The only answer is to learn more about the "Jesus Seminar" before commenting further.

I don't know all THAT much about the Jesus Seminar. In defense of Bismark, I THINK he's just saying they were right about one thing. Even the worst possible organization can be right about one thing by sheer accident.

On the other hand, I don't see the point in even referring to the Jesus Seminar. From what I've read, if Jesus Seminar was right about anything it would HAVE to be by accident. Their methodology is so perverse it almost leaves me speechless. They have manufactured their own vision of Jesus and then made up a bunch of absurd rules to filter out the scriptures that do not agree with their view of who Jesus is. This is not just interpretation. They have literally rewritten the Bible to make it say what they want it to say. Unless they repent, they're going to reap the "rewards" for doing so.

 

[Deacon]

I offer that the Gospels were not written all at once, in one single fell swoop.

A very safe statement.

Rather, the earliest layers of the Gospels were written around 50 AD — precisely when Simon Peter began ministering in Rome, when Saul Paulus began his famous Missionary Journeys around the E. Mediterranean (not to mention the widespread ministries of the other Apostles), and when the First Jerusalem Council was convened (51 AD) to address the issue of the Gentile Mission.

Again a rather safe statement.
Initially the oral teachings of the apostles were “the gospel”.
As the number of believers increased, the need for a written collection of the words and teachings of Jesus would have needed, particularly among new believers who had not witnessed the teachings firsthand.

Luke writes,

“Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.”
Luke 1:1-4 RDB

Furthermore, according to Church Tradition and to D. Bivin in his Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus book series, the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) were originally written in Hebrew.

That’s quite a leap. One that’s not accepted by most scholars.
Ancient accounts of the Hebrew origin of the gospels are, without any additional collaborating witnesses, unreliable. There is just no proof.
Suggestions of Hebrew textual patterns within the Greek texts, IMO, point to the Jewish roots of their authors.

Then, the various Gospels circulated within the early Christian communities — Matthew in Jerusalem, Mark in Rome, Luke in Greece — where they were gradually expanded and updated as those communities evolved for several decades in the face of various new issues facing them.

SNIP
…this process of Gospel revision occurred exclusively during the lifetimes of the Apostles and the original authors.

Given that all we have now is their final product, I’m not sure why this conjecture matters.
Despite the variety of textual differences in the gospels and other writings, on the whole, the text that we hold has been demonstratably fixed.
There is a hypothesis that speculates that this may have occurred with the text of the Acts of the Apostles
Luke may provided two different copies. There are two distinct types found, similar but different in some ways.
…but it’s only one theory among many. [see Metzger’s Textual Commentary - Acts intro].

Furthermore, the Synoptic Gospels were translated from Hebrew to Greek during this time— which in and of itself proves…

This questionable deduction does not prove anything! It’s a hypothesis, quite open to debate.

…that there was an ongoing process of revision.

Of course this could explain the variety of textual changes in the text, which primarily occurred during the opening centuries of Christianity.
But IMO, you present a weak argument for these changes, there are better hypothesis for the differences.

The ultimate test at that time for scripture was quite simple; did it adhere to the rule of faith or orthodoxy.
The canon had not been established.

Rob

 

[TCGreek]

I don't know all THAT much about the Jesus Seminar. In defense of Bismark, I THINK he's just saying they were right about one thing. Even the worst possible organization can be right about one thing by sheer accident.

On the other hand, I don't see the point in even referring to the Jesus Seminar. From what I've read, if Jesus Seminar was right about anything it would HAVE to be by accident. Their methodology is so perverse it almost leaves me speechless. They have manufactured their own vision of Jesus and then made up a bunch of absurd rules to filter out the scriptures that do not agree with their view of who Jesus is. This is not just interpretation. They have literally rewritten the Bible to make it say what they want it to say. Unless they repent, they're going to reap the "rewards" for doing so.

1. Npetreley, at seminary, I did a research paper on the Jesus Seminar. I had to read their primary source, The Five Gospels, an article from Times,where they were featured and other articles they have contributed to journals.

2. I have a little knowledge of how they work, though I'm no expert on them, their methods are very questionable, reducing the historical Jesus as presented in the Gospel narratives of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to just a few authentic sayings.

 

[Deacon]

Yet, other scholars like Geza Vermes and the Jesus Seminar date the Gospels several decades later, from 70-100 AD.

All he did was state the position of some from the Jesus Seminar and some of you question his salvation?
I've read Darwin's, Origin of the Species: Am I saved? :BangHead:

Rob

 

[TCGreek]

I read from their primary work The Five Gospels and several other articles they've written, does that mean I'm not saved?

 

[saturneptune]

I read from their primary work The Five Gospels and several other articles they've written, does that mean I'm not saved?

 

[swaimj]

Bismarck,

Thanks for the original post on this thread. Sorry that some are questioning your salvation. That's really uncalled for. Here are some quotes from what you have written and my responses. Also thanks to Deacon for some good responses.

the earliest layers of the Gospels were written around 50 AD

A reasonable scenario. As long as the apostles were alive, much information was passed along orally. When they began to pass from the scene, the churches began to collect their letters and the letters and writings were regarded as scripture.

the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) were originally written in Hebrew.

I really doubt this. Greek was the language of the day and by the time the gospels were written the church was largely Gentile and even the Jews who received the gospels often lived in greek speaking locales. And no section of any gospel written in Hebrew that pre-dates the greek-language gospels has ever been found anywhere as far as I know. This is a theory looking for evidence that is, so far, non-existent. That's a long, long way from being a fact.

where they were gradually expanded and updated as those communities evolved for several decades in the face of various new issues facing them.

Again, it seems that the writers themselves, to some extent, but not in total, used material (probably oral rather than written) to compile their books. On the other hand, some of what is written can be eye-witness accounts by the author himself and would need no later compilation. Also, if we regard the writings today as inerrant and given by inspiration, the early Christians would have had a VERY different view of the authority of scripture than we have today if they were editing and re-writing apostolic material. In fact, their view would more closely resemble the view of scriptural authority that is held in modern scholarship if they were editing and changing the apostolic writings. So, it sounds like modern scholarship is projecting their incorrect view on inerrancy and inspiration back on the early Christians to make the early Christians look like they agree with modern schlolarship. Talk about re-writing history in you own image!!! I smell a rat!

the Synoptic Gospels were translated from Hebrew to Greek during this time

Again, there is no mention of such a process or of the gospels existing in Hebrew in the writings and sermons of early church fathers.

A couple of comments about all this. When I studied how our scriptures came to be while in seminary, I was more than a little disturbed at what I found. I grew up on pre-KJVOnly fundamentalism in the south. The KJV simply WAS the scripture in our minds. No one ever questioned how it came to be, it just WAS. What I had to realize is that God originally gave his word through a miraculous, supernatural work called inspiration. But he has not preserved his word through supernatural means, rather he has preserved it by human means through his providence. So, when we study the passing on of the canon and its preservation we find human activities that can be a little disturbing and unsettling. But the ideas we accept as to how the scriptures were written and compiled must be rooted in fact. Without evidence of early writings of early forms of scripture in other languages, I just can't buy into theories of such things and I regard such theories as unnecesary and probably dangerous.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

swaim wrote: Bismarck,

Thanks for the original post on this thread. Sorry that some are questioning your salvation. That's really uncalled for.

Swaim,

I trust you didn't have ample time to read through every thread to learn that the "some" is me, who posed the questions, and that I did not question his faith which is against the BB rules. The moderator of this thread posted concerning this and confirmed that I have a walked a narrow line in keeping from this.

I thought I would make a note of this lest somehow you accidently false charge me with wrongdoing.

 

[Ed Edwards]

saturneptune][/B]
. . . it is against the rules of BB to question someone's salvation.

Where is this written?

That rule isn't at the top of this Forum.
It isn't specified as a General Rule.
It is mentioned in other Forums.

However, I think this question doesn't
'question salvation':.

Ed, are you saved?*

Yes, I am saved. I was saved in 1972
by the Grace of God - Jesus done the savin'.

This statement does 'question salvation':

[caveat: The following is not
a correct question to ask, nor am I asking
it, nor am I questioning Ed, it is just
an example]

Ed, I think you are NOT* saved.

[caveat: The preceeding statement is not
a proper statement to use, it isn't true,
I'm not questing the salvation of Ed.
The Holy Spirit witnesses to me that
Brother Ed is a saved person.
The statement is just an example]

* Just an example, statement is
not true but it does 'question salvation'
which is illegal here.

 

[swaimj]

Reformed Baptist.
I meant no offense. When I read a thread I often have trouble remembering who said what unless I am concentrating on a particular person. Several posters had inferred that Bismarck's salvation had been questioned, though as I go back and read what you asked, you were not actually challenging whether he is a believer or not. I picked up on the later remarks when I made my remark. I should have been more careful.

The theories Bismarck is referring to are having an influence even in conservative scholarship. I think they are an area we need to be aware of and that we should be able to discuss without questioning the integrity of a person whose views we may not share. Men who go to seminary are exposed to such theories and it is easy to let the mind explore the possibilities of what is being said. When dealing with people who are exploring such areas and who have honest questions I think it is wise to speak to them about the issue they are raising rather than explore whether they are truly believers.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Reformed Baptist.
I meant no offense. When I read a thread I often have trouble remembering who said what unless I am concentrating on a particular person. Several posters had inferred that Bismarck's salvation had been questioned, though as I go back and read what you asked, you were not actually challenging whether he is a believer or not. I picked up on the later remarks when I made my remark. I should have been more careful.

The theories Bismarck is referring to are having an influence even in conservative scholarship. I think they are an area we need to be aware of and that we should be able to discuss without questioning the integrity of a person whose views we may not share. Men who go to seminary are exposed to such theories and it is easy to let the mind explore the possibilities of what is being said. When dealing with people who are exploring such areas and who have honest questions I think it is wise to speak to them about the issue they are raising rather than explore whether they are truly believers.

Thanks for your kind reply. I had been enjoying the posts from Bismarck thinking the brother was trying to share some extra-biblical support for the truth of events, people, places, et. of Holy Scirpture. These things can be useful and made to be a strengthening of things most assuredly believed among us. Some things are facinating like the evidence about Balaam. I really enjoyed the article he provided to christiansanswers.

It was when the Jesus Seminar was somewhat hailed as a good source of scholarship that I wondered how far he may have gone with them in their scholarship. So, I asked. Had the JS not been introduced I would have never even thought to ask.