Questions about Bibical Gospelsgreenspun.com : LUSENET : Countryside : One Thread |
Concerning the four Gospels ( Matthew, Mark, Luke and John ) When they were writing these ,Do you think they knew they were writing them for the bible? And can you show me? This is a question I was asked the other day.
-- Bonnie (Josabo1@juno.com), August 24, 2000
I am certainly not a bibical scholar. It is unlikely the men cited could even read or write, since that skill was very rare at that time. In all likelyhood what is in the Bible was handed down verbally from generation to generation and not actually recorded on paper for a couple of hundred years. Even then it had to be handcopied by scribes from document to document and who is to say they didn't spice it up a bit. Is the Sermon on the Mound literally the words of Jesus? Sit five people down, have them listen to a speech and then afterwards write it down nearly as word for word as they can. You will come up with five different versions.
-- Ken S. in TN (scharabo@aol.com), August 24, 2000.
Ken, you are all wrong about the literacy rates of that era. You may be thinking of the Middle Ages -- but not the Biblical era!! Yes, the four Gospels were written down, within about seventy years after the death and ressurection of Jesus Christ. (And enough people were still alive who had first-hand knowledge of His life, death, and ressurection, that if there were any inaccuracies in those accounts, they would have been immediately refuted.) The last one was the book of John, the others were written considerably earlier. There are no discrepancies between them, but they do each tell the story from a different point of view, and with a different objective. I am going to quote a little bit from the introduction to the NT in my Bible. (Emphasis on some words is mine.)The four Gospels record the eternal being, human ancestry, birth, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus the Christ, Son of God, and Son of Man. They record also a *selection* from the incidents of His life, and from His words and works. Taken together, they set forth, not a biography but a Personality.
These two facts, that we have in the four Gospels a complete Personality, but not a complete biography, indicate the spirit and intent in which we should approach them. What is important is that through these narratives we should come to see and know Him whom they reveal. It is of relatively small importance that we should be able to piece together out of these confessedly incomplete records (John 21:25)a connected story of His life. For some adequate reason -- perhaps lest we should be too much occupied with "Christ after the flesh" -- it did not please God to cause to be written a biography of His Son. The twenty-nine formative years are passed over in a silence which is broken but once, and that in but twelve brief verses of Luke's Gospel. It may be well to respect the divine reticence.
But the four Gospels, though designedly incomplete as a story, are divinely perfect as a revelation. We may not through them know everything that He did, but we may know the doer. In four great characters, each of which completes the other three, we have Jesus Christ Himself. The Evangelists never describe Christ -- they set Him forth. They tell us almost nothing of what they thought about Him, they let Him speak and act for Himself.
(I'm skipping over quite a bit now -- if anyone is interested, e-mail me, and I will type out the rest of it.)
Especial emphasis rests upon that to which all four Gospels bear a united testimony. That united testimony is sevenfold:
1. In all alike is revealed the one unique Personality. The one Jesus is King in Matthew, Servant in Mark, Man in Luke, and God in John. But not only so: for Matthew's King is also Servant, Man, and God; and Mark's Servant is also King, and Man, and God; Luke's Man is also King, and Servant, and God; and John's eternal Son is also King, and Servant, and Man.
The pen is a different pen; the incidents in which He is seen are sometimes different incidents; the distinctive character in which He is presented is a different character; but He is always the same Christ. That fact alone would mark these books as inspired.
-- I'm not going to record the other six of the seven unities mentioned, as the one stated makes my point. Hope this helps clear up the confusion. I find that the more I read and study the Bible (not books *about* the Bible), the more I find complete unity from beginning to end -- the Old Testament is in the New Testament, and the New Testament is in the Old Testament.
-- Kathleen Sanderson (stonycft@worldpath.net), August 24, 2000.
I usually stay out of religious questions but this one I had to answer. The bible is yes messed up some by translators. One mistake that sticks out in my mind is translating the word thigh for hand. (old testiment) As for just oral traditions, the answer to that is no. Most of the bible is actually translations of letters written to various groups. Weather or not the person actually wrote them or found a scribe (easily found, just go to the local temple) is not relevant. Did they know their words would be sent around the world? Yes, in that they knew God had promised that one day every person on the earth would hear the gospel. Sorry I don't know the reference off the top of my head. And Jesus himself could most certainly read and write. How else could he have taught in the temple when he was 12? They would have shrugged him off as an ignorant kid if he wasn't at least that educated! Would he have taught his disiples? I would think so, although I can't say for certain. annette
-- annette (j_a_henry@yahoo.com), August 24, 2000.
Kathleen, I find it amusing that you state how much you have learned from the Bible instead of books "about" the Bible and your whole narrative is taken from the "introduction" to your Bible. I hate to bust your bubble but the Bible didn't have an introduction so I guess you are learning from a "book about the Bible".Also, Ken is not "all wrong" as you so strongly characterize him. Keep in mind, everything we learn about history is what we read in books. Depends on which books you have read as to what becomes "your" truth. I'm referring to when the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were actually recorded not to the truths of the Bible itself. Scholars differ on when these books were first recorded and how. That is why this issue comes up. If we knew the answer for sure there wouldn't be so much discussion about it.
-- Colleen (pyramidgreatdanes@erols.com), August 24, 2000.
I have been told that our King James version is greatly edited (passages that King James didn't find suitable were removed). Could this lend itself to the condridictions? Do any of you know more detail of this editing?
-- Jay Blair (jayblair678@yahoo.com), August 24, 2000.
Form criticism or the idea of an oral tradition leading up to the writing of the gospel, has many problems. First of all the oral traditon would have had to develop in a very short time indeed. There are many other writings by people other than christians which point to Christ's existance and teachings on earth. Legend and oral tradition take time to develop, and legend and oral tradition in the detail of the gospels is virtually non-existent. Here is the way a Biblical scholar by the name of L.J. McGinley explains the problems of Form criticism. "First of all eyewitnesses of the events in question were still alive when the tradition had been completely formed; and among those eyewitnesses were bitter enemies of the new religious movement. Yet the tradition claimed to narrate a series of well known deeds and publicly taught doctrines at a time when false statements could and would have been challenged.Secondly even though Christianity had wide spread growth, the traditions of the gospels were so well formed that thirty years after Jesus' death, the gospel of Mark, influenced by Peter, was instantly accepted in Rome.
Thirdly, the fact that the whole process took less than thirty years, and that it's essential part was accomplished in a decade and a half, finds no parallel in any tradition to which the synoptic Gospels have been compared." Quoted from More Evidence That Demands a Verdict, by Josh McDowell 1975, 1981
Little bit Farm
-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), August 24, 2000.
I'm not going to stay with this post much longer, but if Jesus was God's representative on Earth, what happened to him between the ages of 12 (preaching in the Temple) and 30, when he seems to reappear? 18 years seems a long time to waste as a carpenter's apprentice.
-- Ken S. in TN (scharabo@aol.com), August 24, 2000.
Matthew was a tax collecter. From that we can reasonably assume that he knew about math, and probably how to write and keep records. Luke was a physician- that hardly sounds ignorant or uneducated to me! The book of John, is hardly the work of an illiterate man, as he was quite well read in the scriptures and their deeper meaning. I have heard a lot of preachers characterize the apostles as uneducated country bumpkins, (no offense intended to fellow countrysiders!), but the fact is that the Jews did, and still do, place a VERY high value on education. Even in those times, they would go without food or basic necessities if necessary, to aquire schooling . We know that the Saviour could both read and write, too, because he read the Torah reading from Isaiah, and he wrote in the dust on the temple floor.
-- Rebekah (daniel1@transport.com), August 24, 2000.
Yeah, I'm soon off this post, too. However, two comments.One: Emperor Constantine (way before King James ) was the first major editor of the Bible we know (when he converted to Christianity and made it the new official faith...~330 AD) by having the first versions printed...it was kind of like Microsoft saying: Ok, let's publish the beta version anyway...we can fix the bugs later! (kind of, anyway!)He may have left a couple of things out...
Two: For those of you who are interested in checking out what some Biblical scholars have to say about the "authenticity" of New Testament Scripture, etc., you might want to check out "The Jesus Project" (meetings among scholars that have been going on for oh, a decade at least) or any published works by John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, and a few others (pop on over to Amazon.com to check out what's available and then get from your local library). The studies have been very interesting. You will still need to make up your own mind, which may or may not have anything to do with your faith (I don't think faith is particularly cerebral stuff, myself). Peace.
-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), August 24, 2000.
I meant The Jesus Seminar, not the Jesus Project. Excuse me.
-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), August 24, 2000.
I hope Im not beating a dead horse here; I was looking thru the threads and found this interesting. Do you all mind my 2 cents worth? I'm an ex-fundamentalist; for years I involved myself with groups that were very strict with THEIR interpretation of the bible; negating others in so many polite terms. Its not that I was being unsubmissive...or lacking in faith...but I have come to the conclusion that JESUS is the Truth,and as wonderful pastor wurmbrand says, God is the Truth. The Bible is the truth about the Truth. Theology is the truth anbout the truth, about the Truth....somewhwere amongst this scaffolding of words, we must come into the Reality of the truth, which is God.I've found a very gentle voice amongst the din of the many; his name is Fr. Richard Rohr, HEY-if anyone is confused about the understanding of how , why, when,where, etc. of the Bible being written; his book "The Great Themes of the Scriptures" is a very gentle, spiritual and sane read (smile).Please let me share a quote:"but whoever actually wrote the gospels, one thing is very certain: they are not intended as biographies of Jesus or as news accounts of some sort. They were not meant to be accurate in every detail, living up to the standards of modern history and journalism. People who believe that the Bible must live upto modern conceptions of literal truth are known as biblical lieralists or fundamentalists. They mistakenly expect ancient literature to be measured by the standards of modern realism....The gospels,in a sense, are an attrempt to portray the faith of one generation of Christians to the next. ..this cannot be done directly,but only through stories and pictures. To overanalyze the stories and pictures, therefore, is to miss the point. The point is what goes on beyond what eyes can seeand ears can hear. The point is good news that cannot be argued logically or proven rationally. It can only be experienced-received as a gift and accepted in faith."
-- Beth Weber (talmidim88@hotmail.com), August 24, 2000.
I was NOT questioning who wrote the gospels, or the truth of them. I FULLY BELIEVE THEM. I know they were inspired of God. My question was "Do you think they knew they were writing them as part of the scriptures?" And can you show me where you find your answer? This was a question asked of me by my Pastor this week.
-- Bonnie (josabo1@juno.com), August 24, 2000.
I think they wrote them as a historical record for the church. As to whether they knew it was to be Scripture or not I don't know. My opinion is that they did, but I can't prove it.The gospel of Luke and Acts were written to a person, Theophilus (meaning lover of God). Check the first few verses of each book. There is disagreement whether Theophilus was an individual person or a term for all Christians. But don't know if Luke knew they would be Scripture.
What a weird question. Never heard that one before.
-- Vaughn (vdcjm5@juno.com), August 25, 2000.
Question: Every version of the Bible I have seen on the creation of man says he was made in their image. "Their" implies at least two. Some people have given me the answer, well it is the holy trigoly of The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost. The Son didn't exist yet and I have never, ever been able to reconcile with who this Holy Ghost is. An ages old debate is whether or not Adam and Even had belly bottons. If they did, it implies they were of natural birth. Almost all old paintings hide this area to avoid that question. To me the Bible raises far more questions than it answers. I try to live by the Ten Commandments since they seem a pretty good set of rules for a society. Beyond that, I don't hold much stock in a literal translation of the Bible.Don't get me wrong. I'm not questioning the general orientation of the Bible. It says the Earth was created in six days. If six days is something like six-billion years, the general sequence seems to fit. I just don't take it as literally word-for-word.
-- Ken S. in TN (scharabo@aol.com), August 25, 2000.
I generally don't post religious topic answers because I feel that face to face , Bible in hand teaching is best, but here goes. Did the four Gospel writers know they were writing the Bible? Yes and no. The word Bible comes from the Greek word "bi-bli'a" which means "little books". They were, under Divine inspiration , recording for future reading and teaching the events that happened .......adding a chapter to the "little books" as it were. As far as there education and literacy? Matthew, a tax collector....an educated man no doubt...it goes with the job. Written in Palestine about 41 AD. Mark a young man who wrote in an impulsive , descriptive,and vigorous style...obviously a literate young man. Written in Rome about 60 to 65 AD. Luke, the physician who used more than 300 medical terms in his writing....enough said. Written in Caesarea about 56 to 58 AD. And John, a former Jew who had almost 70 years of active ministry and was the most Divinely blessed with great visions. Written in Ephesus or there abouts in 98 AD.
-- Jason (AJAMA5@netscape.net), August 25, 2000.
Ken, drag your old Bible out, dust it off, and read it! Throughout the Bible, it is made very plain that Jesus Christ has always existed and always will exist! You can start in Revelation 22 if that will make the search any easier. As to the person who commented on my using the words of another person for my explanation, I could have said it myself, but figured they said it better. Ken, another thing, how could the *general sequence* be right comparing the six days of literal creation (which I believe in) to the billions of years evolutionists believe in? Re-read Genesis 1, and see if you think that green plants could have existed for millions of years before the sun was created? Or if the plants could have existed for millions of years before animals were created? Remember the intricate inter- relationships of plants and animals. It's either God or not God, creation or not creation, but they don't mix at all.
-- Kathleen Sanderson (stonycft@worldpath.net), August 25, 2000.
Ken, although it is not specificaly mentioned, I do believe God has a wife. This explains the "their image" and the fact that men and women are very different in their physical characteristics. annette
-- annette (j_a_henry@yahoo.com), August 25, 2000.
Ken, Jesus has always existed. When man was created in their image, He had not taken on the form of man. As a matter of fact John ( the book of John ) starts out with "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," ( then if you continue to read you will see "And the word became flesh and dwelt among us " And did you know that the book of Isaiah tells of Christ' life and crucifiction in great detail as it actually happened hundreds of years later. I have heard of the Trinity ( Father Son & Holy Ghost) explained like unto an egg. You have a shell, a yolk, and the white. Three parts but one egg. And as far as weather Adam and Eve had belly buttons? What difference does it make?
-- Bonnie (Josabo1@juno.com), August 25, 2000.
Ken,You show great and helpful knowledge in your posts but your statement about Jesus not being present at the beginning really indicates infamiliarity with your subject matter. Even a quick, skimming speed read of the Bible would negate your comment.
I'm not trying to be ugly - been there myself. One observation about the Bible. It's different as you read it through various stages in your life. Some parts were sure boring until I got older and started to appreciate history. I could have cared less for the psalms until a little over a year ago when I was briefly really ground down. Are your parents old or are you getting there yourself? You can't read a dirge as tragically depressing as Solomon's sign-off resignation to agedness: "when one rises at the sound of a bird...when one is afraid of heights, and terrors are in the road...the grasshopper drags itself along and desire fails" (the numerous wives and concubines drove him to it).
Anyhow, other posters have said it better.
But Kathleen, it is quite possible to accept both evolution and the Genesis account. Unless of course I'm dead wrong but still covered by grace.
-- charles (clb@watervalley.net), August 25, 2000.
For me, I think this was one of the most exciting and thought provoking threads I've ever read... But, like so many of these kinds of discussions, you end up with more questions than answers. I do know Charles is so right about the parts of the Bible that speak to you at different times in your life and even on different days, which is why we call it the Living Bible.Daniel spoke of the time of the Jews was coming to a dire end, but that same book speaks of today. So is Daniel from the past, or is he predicting our own future here?
Kathleen, I think you are one of the most eloquent writers and have a tremendous amount of wisdom.
Charles, we believe in Creation, not Evolution. My children know of both arguments, but, as you say, you're covered by grace, and I don't think it's a prerequisite for entering into the Kingdom of God. However, salvation is. Your salvation is more important to Him than looking for answers which man has done since the fall. We are also told we will never have ALL of our answers here on Earth, but this kind of discussion is wonderful and enlightening.
I just had to add my 2 cents. Oh, Charles, I hope I didn't sound as tho you've committed some "sin" for your beliefs on Creation. I know so many Christians who have beliefs in both camps, but their hearts belong to Jesus and I know yours does.
-- Louise Whitley (whitley@terraworld.net), August 26, 2000.
Hey Louise! Nice to see you here! Yes, the "religious" threads here are great. The people spend so much time thinking and writing their posts. Re evolution vs. creationism. I'm too much of a scientist to ignore evolution. In biology it is a paradigm useful in explaining much. A very devout major professor of mine once said that evolution was obvious but that God could have made it up just to look that way. A Divine joke I hope it was not.My sister once said that Moses went up to mount Sinai where God revealed to him the Law and the history of the Universe. God wrote the 10 commandments himself on stone tablets. Moses was left to explain all the rest to the goathearders and recent slaves and Genesis to them in more or less "outline" form. Like Moses could have comprehended DNA and quantum physics. Who knows. Some details weren't important enought to reveal.
Anyway I see God as no less magnificent if he used what we call evolution at the method to create. Just like it would'nt bother me to discover that the plagues in Egypt (let my people go!) had "natural" causes like a volacanic eruption in the Mediterraneans as the source of fire and brimstone. Who created dirt or the Big Bang anyway?
If I'm wrong its insignificant anyway. Grace abounds and I'm not sure if grace is necessary for just plain ignorance anyway.
-- charles (clb@watervalley.net), August 28, 2000.
Ken, after Beth's Post, you posted another question that shows that you did not grasp her post at all. You are still looking for literal interperetation, or some figurative number that corresponds by a multiple. The point of the Genesis narrative is not science. It is Theology. It doesn't matter whether God took six days or six billion years to create the Earth/universe. That is not the purpose for writing. The author does not really pretend to know or address the question. He is telling a story. The point is to tell who created, that he created all that is, that he took personal interest and delight in it (as opposed, say, to Eastern mystic ideas about God/consciousness) and to express other ideas about the creator.Yes this particular book was handed on orally for many years. But remember that you and I hear and forget hundreds of facts in a day and write down what is really important to us, whereas then, they just did not have the volume of information to deal with that we now have and they told these stories again and again and again around the campfire. So on the one hand it may have changed a bit to keep the hearers' interest, or for other reasons, but on the other hand, much of it was repeated verbatim and memorized by the entire tribe. They spent more time and effort with this sort of recordkeeping out of necessity. This is known through examining traditions of oral cultures still alive until very recently, and through "historical" records (some more "factual" as we think of history today) of cultures of the past.
Luke's writings took place mostly on the road while he was with Paul. Yes, both were eyewitnesses and both were literate. But that does not make their writings more truthful than Genesis.
I respect a healthy skepticism. I believe the mind seeks Truth, and so your questioning is healthy. What makes people come to accept the Bible as a complete collection of the Inspired Word of God? In some cases it is scholastic research. Many scholars who set out to debunk Christianity wound up embracing it when they had learned enough. If intense study rises up your list of priorities, you will be better able to make a definite judgement one way or the other.
For me, it was some very exceptional people who drew me to the Church. Their lives were different. Their minds and hearts were different than most people, different than what I had known. Very attractive. As I got to know them, I saw that the beliefs and character of the people were connected - no accident. There's more to tell, but that was the turning point.
-- Bob (robertblessum@netscape.net), September 21, 2001.