0
In this answer I explained, years ago, how there was not only no historical evidence for the Gospel stories, but how the historical record contradicts the Gospel stories. In particular, I pointed out that Luke dates the Nativity to the census of Quirinius, which took place long after Herod's death.
Wiki User
∙ 7y ago
Wiki User
∙ 12y agoEssential background information is that the New Testament gospels were all written anonymously and only attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John later in the second century. Thus we do not know who wrote any of the gospels, but we can be sure that John was not written by an eyewitness to the life and mission of Jesus.
The gospel opens by stating (John 1:1-3), "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." True or otherwise, this is something that is necessarily beyond human knowledge. The synoptic authors certainly did not know this, describing the life of Jesus as beginning with his conception by the Holy Spirit, so how did John know? Centuries earlier, the Greek philosopher had imagined the Word (Logos) as a divine creator in the pagan milieu. Philo of Alexandria, a near-contemporary of Jesus, brought this into the Jewish milieu and described Logos as God's son, a second god, through whom the world was created as a rational and ordered universe. Philo described the Word as born of mother Wisdom and appearing in the world to be the agent through whom the great leaders of Israel learned what God expected of them. Apart from Wisdom, this was all the author of John needed in order to make Jesus pre-existing and divine.
The Gospels of Matthew and Luke are largely based on Mark's Gospel, as can be shown by a parallel reading in the original Greek language. However, even when telling the same account, there are differences in the three synoptic gospels so that it is possible to state which was used as a source for John. There is no evidence that the author knew anything about Matthew's Gospel, but he certainly knew Mark and Luke.
There are many passages in John that could only have come from Luke. In Luke chapter 5, we find that Jesus told the disciples to take their boat ot a little and cast their nets. They had been toiling all night, but had caught nothing, but did as Jesus said. They were astounded at the amount of fish they caught. This does not appear in John's Gospel during the life of Jesus, but a similar event is described in chapter 21, where verse 3 says they fished all night but caught nothing. Jesus told them to cast their nets on the other side, and they caught a multitude of fish. The two sisters, Mary and Martha appear in Luke's Gospel, as does Lazarus, who is in a parable in which Jesus tells of him dying and resurrected. In John's Gospel, Lazarus becomes the brother of Mary and Martha, and this time he really dies and is really resurrected by Jesus. Among the synoptic gospels, only Luke has Peter running to the empty tomb; in fact this is ruled out by Markand Matthew. John also has Peter run to the tomb, but has the 'disciple whom Jesus loved' outrun Peter, be the first to look inside and be the first to believe (this is a frequent contrast, with the beloved disciple always appearing at times when he can be compared favourably with Peter). The author, as usual, is careful not to directly contradict his source, and still has Peter the first to actually enter the empty tomb.
Other passages could only have come from direct from Mark, unless the author had another, now unknown source or personally knew of the events described, and would describe them just as Mark did. That the author did in fact use Mark can be demonstrated by his use of 'Markan intercalation', a literary device that the author of Mark had used to contrast two unrelated stories and create theological emphasis. Luke had been unaware of this technique, but we see it in Mark and then emphatically in John in the story of Peter denying Jesus, intercalated with the story of Jesus' passion.
Wiki User
∙ 7y agoThere is no historical evidence that supports the Gospel stories. True, Josephus wrote about the beliefs held by followers of Jesus some fifty years later, but describing them in such general terms neither confirms the gospel stories nor even tells us much about what those followers believed. Nothing written about Jesus exists from his own lifetime - not even the gospels.
Thallus is reported to have written about a darkness over the earth. We know little about him, but he probably wrote shortly after 109 BCE, but other estimates include sometime after 52 CE or after 92 CE. Whenever he wrote and whatever he wrote, it seems unlikely he actually mentioned Jesus. This is not historical evidence.
One genuine historical event mentioned in Luke's Gospel is the census of Quirinius. When Emperor Augustus deposed Archelaus as tetrarch of Judea in 6 CE, he ordered Quirinius to undertake a census of that territory for tax purposes. According to Luke's Gospel, Joseph and Mary were required to leave Nazareth and go to Bethlehem in order to be counted in the census in Judea. Just one problem with this account is that Luke also says that Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod, who died in April, 4 BCE. Whoever wrote Luke either did not realise that King Herod died ten years before the time of the census, or did not believe that his readers would be able to challenge his facts.
There is no historical evidence of King Herod's 'Slaughter of the Innocents' in Matthew 2:16-18. In fact there is no historical evidence for any of the events reported about Jesus in the gospels.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Which Gospel writer is thought to have been Peter's translator?
A:Conservative Christians regard Mark as the translator who took Peter's experiences and wrote them down in the Gospel that now bears his name, but this is not the scholarly view. The conservative view arose because Mark is mentioned in the pseudonymous epistle, 1 Peter (5:13) as Peter's son, and Papias said that he was also the 'interpreter' for Peter. However, both are second-century sources and rely on Mark having actually been the author of the gospel that now bears his name.The New Testament gospels were originally anonymous and it was not until later in the second century that the Church Fathers thought to attribute authors, by which time any evidence as to who the authors were was long lost. The tradition that Mark was the author of the gospel that now bears his name arose around 130 CE, when Papias supposed that he was probably the author. Studies of this gospel have identified probable sources for some of the material in the gospel, good evidence that whatever the various sources were, they were not the words of Peter. So, although it is possible that Mark may have worked with Peter, he was not the writer of a gospel
When was the second gospel written?
There is strong evidence that the first gospel, now known as Mark's Gospel, was written within two or three years of the year 70 CE. The second gospel, Matthew's Gospel is widely believed to have been written around 85 CE, although Raymond E. Brown (An Introduction to the New Testament) suggests an allowance of about ten years either way.
Why does John not mention himself by name in the Gospel of John?
The short answer is that John does not mention himself by name in the Gospel of John because John did not write that Gospel. It was written anonymously and only attributed to John by the Church Fathers later in the second century, when they were attempting to decide who probably wrote each of the New Testament gospels. A slightly fuller anwer is that the Church Fathers, puzzled at the lack of evidence as to who wrote this Gospel, saw that a 'disciple whom Jesus loved' was a key character in this Gospel. They decided that this disciple must be the author, who must have just been too modest to use his own name. They then noted that the apostle John was not mentioned any where in this Gospel, and decided that John was the missing disciple. Thus, on supposition and quite limited evidence, John became the author of the fourth gospel.
Why was Apostle Mark's mentor Peter?
The Church Fathers noticed that 2 Peter 5:13 has Peter refer to Mark as "my son." Unaware that Second Peter is a pseudepigraphical epistle, they assumed this either meant that Mark was indeed the son of Peter or at least that Peter held Mark in high esteem. A tradition subsequently arose that Mark wrote the second gospel based on the memoirs of Peter, although another early tradition was that Mark's Gospel was written as a summary of Matthew's Gospel (the evidence is that Mark's Gospel was actually written before Matthew).Because we now know that 2 Peter was written long after the death of Peter, it can no longer be considered as evidence that Mark even knew Peter. Mark's Gospel was written before Matthew).
Which Gospel is called as Ecclesiastical Gospel?
gospel of matthew
Is there a gospel of Paul?
A:There is no Gospel of Paul, but there is evidence that Mark's Gospel did use come material out of Paul's Epistles to the Galatians and the Corinthians. There is also evidence found in Luke's Gospel of borrowing from Paul's epistles.
Which is the first gospel of the New Testament?
This question has two answers. The gospels are traditionally placed in the order: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, so the first is Matthew. However, there is very strong evidence that Mark was the first gospel to be written, and that Matthew and Luke used Mark as their primary sources, so Mark was the first gospel written.
What did Jesus do in Babylon?
AnswerThere are some legends that Jesus went to Babylon, or even Tibet, during his childhood, because of similarities between his teachings and those of Zoroaster and Buddha. However, they are not supported by the gospel stories, and there is no extra-biblical evidence that supports the legends.
Which Gospel writer is thought to have been Peter's translator?
A:Conservative Christians regard Mark as the translator who took Peter's experiences and wrote them down in the Gospel that now bears his name, but this is not the scholarly view. The conservative view arose because Mark is mentioned in the pseudonymous epistle, 1 Peter (5:13) as Peter's son, and Papias said that he was also the 'interpreter' for Peter. However, both are second-century sources and rely on Mark having actually been the author of the gospel that now bears his name.The New Testament gospels were originally anonymous and it was not until later in the second century that the Church Fathers thought to attribute authors, by which time any evidence as to who the authors were was long lost. The tradition that Mark was the author of the gospel that now bears his name arose around 130 CE, when Papias supposed that he was probably the author. Studies of this gospel have identified probable sources for some of the material in the gospel, good evidence that whatever the various sources were, they were not the words of Peter. So, although it is possible that Mark may have worked with Peter, he was not the writer of a gospel
Where can a person find Gospel Christmas songs?
There are many places where one can find Gospel Christmas songs. One can find Gospel Christmas songs at popular on the web sources such as iTunes and the Amazon MP3 store.
What evidence for the resurrection does John present?
The evidence that John presents for the resurrection of Jesus somewhat contradicts the evidence of the other gospels, but is closest to Luke, the synoptic gospel that John's Gospel most closely resembles.In John's Gospel, the risen Jesus appeared to the disciples in the upper room and showed them his wounds, but Thomas was not present. Eight days later, Jesus again appeared to the disciples, this time with Thomas present, and offered to let Thomas touch his wounds. These appearances, and the later appearance at the Sea of Galilee, are provided as evidence of the resurrection, and the wounds are the evidence that this really was Jesus, in the flesh.
Is there evidence outside the Bible that proves Matthew was a historical person?
In the early first century, Matthew was never mentioned by anyone outside the gospels, and the gospel that bears his name was written anonymously and only attributed to Matthew later in the second century. So, the existence of the gospel is not evidence for the historicity of Matthew and there is no other extra-biblical evidence for him.
Is there any proof outside the Bible for the historicity of Mark?
There is no extra-biblical proof of the historicity of the disciple. Moreover, the Gospel known to us as the Gospel According to St Mark or St Mark's Gospel does not identify its author, and it was not until the second century that it was finally attributed by the Church Fathers to the Apostle Mark, thus giving this previously anonymous Gospel the name "Gospel According to St Mark". However, there is no real evidence to support that opinion, and considerable evidence to the contrary. The decision of the Church Fathers to attribute the Gospel to the apostle Mark was an admirable, but not necessarily correct one.
Who sing original gospel song he touch you?
While there isn't a gospel song entitled 'He Touch You', there is a very popular gospel song entitled 'He Touched Me'. This song was written by W. J. Gaither, and has been performed by multiple individuals.
Who wrote St Mark's Gospel?
Mark the Evangelist is the traditional author of the Gospel of Mark.Another AnswerThe writer of the Gospel of Mark is deemed normally to be the man known in the New Testament as John Mark. This is the person referred to in the verse below:Acts 12:25 (King James Version): And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark.Apart from the fact that there is no evidence which contradicts the Markan authorship, there is also concrete positive concrete evidence from external sources supporting it. Papias indicates that Mark got much of his information from the disciple Peter, although he certainly used other sources. The Aramaic coloring of some of Mark's work demonstrates his Jewish background. Others have suggested he also made use of what is referred to as 'Aramaic Matthew', the first Gospel of Matthew, written in Aramaic which is now lost. Whatever were his sources, there is no reason to doubt the attribution to him.Answer from Wikipedia"The gospel itself is anonymous."
What are some historical narratives in Mark's Gospel?
Mark's Gospel focuses on the life and mission of Jesus. It does not contain any historical narratives, in the sense of narratives of events that can be confirmed by other sources.
What gospel writer worked with Peter?
Mark is mentioned in the pseudonymous epistle, 1 Peter (5:13) as Peter's son, and Papias said that he was also the 'interpreter' for Peter. Although both are second-century sources, this could place Mark with the apostle Peter.The tradition that Mark was the author of the Gospel that now bears his name arose around 130 CE, when Papias supposed that he was probably the author. However, there is no evidence that he was really the author of the gospel that now bears his name. So, although it is possible that Mark may have worked with Peter, he was not the writer of a gospel
