5 ms·

The gospels were written not all that long after Jesus died -within the lifetimes of people who could remember him. > in particular "He who is without sin cast

The gospels were written not all that long after Jesus died -within the lifetimes of people who could remember him. > in particular "He who is without sin cast the first stone" seems to have been a later addition.) That is the consensus, but there are people who think otherwise - the alternative theory, which is at least plausible, is that it was offensive at the time to suggest a woman could get away with adultery. > We have recent, extremely well documented historical figures like MLK, Einstein, and Gandhi, who have quotes commonly misattributed to them all the time, that are easily disproven with a a few minutes of searching. One advantage they had over us is that writing and circulating information was an effort - they did not have social media! I would imagine believers would be motivated to be accurate.

empath75 2y ago
Not everyone involved in a religion is a believer. A lot of people get involved for their own purposes. But yes, the desire of believers to be accurate is why I'd expect something like Q to be written down eventually. Also, people misattributing quotes to people is not a recent phenomenon. Many commonly misattributed quotes have a long history going back 100s of years or more. It's only the massive amount of information we have about recent historical figures that allows us to definitively say that the misattributed quotes are wrong. If you go back more than a few hundred years, it gets very difficult.
berkeleynerd 2y ago
This is not at all the consensus of scholars working at public secular institutions not affiliated with religious institutions of higher learning. A late dating of the formation of the canon is just as viable if not more so among this academic community.
- hyfbjtdeh 2y ago
  Cui bono? -- in both directions
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
ahazred8ta 2y ago
"cast the first stone" -- This was actually a criticism that the law required the accusers to bring the woman AND the man and the eyewitnesses, and the eyewitnesses must cast the first stone. Their absence invalidated the trial.
- graemep 2y ago
  The full phrase is "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". I do not know how that fits with eyewitnesses. How often would there be eyewitnesses to adultery anyway?
  - ahazred8ta 2y ago
    Deuteronomy: Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses; he shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness. The hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people.
panick21_ 2y ago
> The gospels were written not all that long after Jesus died That highly questionable. Even the very conservative secular scholars don't believe Mark was written before 70 and John before 90. And many secular scholars believe considerably later dates. > One advantage they had over us is that writing and circulating information was an effort - they did not have social media! I would imagine believers would be motivated to be accurate. I'm sorry but that is completely at odds with everything we know from that time. There is rampant falsification, editing and addition in ancient writings. That's why we have lots of letter from Paul, some talking about things that literally didn't even exist when Paul wrote. Thus even conservative scholars don't believe all the letters are written by Paul. We have tons of faked content from back then. The bible (both old and new) is full of it. People back then even the very best ancient historians simply admitted that they made up the speeches of great generals. And there is zero evidence that the gospel were written by series historians or anybody that even attempted that. The idea that we can trust the gospel because writing was effort and nobody would ever put effort into lying is just naive.
- prewett 2y ago
  Since Mark 13 talks predicts the destruction of the Temple yet has no record of the fulfillment of that prophecy when the Temple was burned and destroyed and Jerusalem razed in 70, which would have been a cataclysmic event for the church, which would have had it's center in Jerusalem. Eusebius notes in his church history that no Christian died, because they left Jerusalem when the Roman army withdrew briefly because of the prophecy. So it's hard to date Mark to after 70, even if you don't believe that Mark was the written account Peter promised in one of his epistles (and presumed to be written by the Mark that acts talks of); Peter's death is usually dated to 64. > [lots of letters from Paul] talk about things that literally didn't even exist when Paul wrote Seems unlikely to me, and I've never heard any reference to them. But do you have any examples? Regarding faked content, making up the speeches of generals, etc: for one thing the Christians viewed these sayings as coming from God, so they had a definite interest in getting them right. One need not quote someone exactly to write something that is accurately reflects what he said. My dad talks about secretaries who CEOs, etc. would just say "answer this letter for me", and they knew exactly how he would respond and could write the letter for him. The apostles were alive for several decades and could correct things. Eusebius cites someone who had learned the faith from someone who was one or two people removed from the apostles, and he went and found the apostle John, and was overjoyed to find that what he had been taught was the same as what John said.
timeon 2y ago
> within the lifetimes of people who could remember him. We do not know. We have no records that are contemporary to him (if it was one person or it it was someone at all).
zifpanachr23 2y ago
And MLK, Einstein, Gandhi has the enormous advantage of the printing press and widespread access to the tools for writing as well as being in a substantially more literate time. I think it's remarkable how well something from 2000 years ago has held up despite the obvious deficiencies according to modern documentation and preservation standards. You can find far worse examples of ancient texts, they just usually don't generate as much research interest so people mostly don't argue about them publicly.
amanaplanacanal 2y ago
If by "not long after" you mean 40 to 80 years.
- graemep 2y ago
  I specified within lifetimes of people who know him, so 40 would fit that, 80 would be pushing it.
goatlover 2y ago
> One advantage they had over us is that writing and circulating information was an effort - they did not have social media! I would imagine believers would be motivated to be accurate. Or they were motivated to present their view of things as seen by the various pseudepigrapha, large number of Gospels by the late 2nd century, disagreements in the community evident in Paul's genuine letters, and theological differences between canonical Gospels, such as what Matthew and Luke left out or changed from Mark. In the 2nd Century, we have Church fathers railing against other Christian communities for heretical writings and teachings. There were Jewish Christians (Ebioinites) who likely saw Paul as a false prophet, There were the various so-called Gnostic communities who thought the were legitimate Christians, and the proto-orthodox. There was also Marcion with his Gospel and followers. Half the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas are similar to sayings in the Synoptics, but with a twist. Five of the 12 letters attributed to Paul were likely written later by other authors claiming to be Paul with their own theological views. Luke says things about Paul in Acts that contradict what Paul himself says in his genuine letters.

empath75 2y ago

Not everyone involved in a religion is a believer. A lot of people get involved for their own purposes. But yes, the desire of believers to be accurate is why I'd expect something like Q to be written down eventually. Also, people misattributing quotes to people is not a recent phenomenon. Many commonly misattributed quotes have a long history going back 100s of years or more. It's only the massive amount of information we have about recent historical figures that allows us to definitively say that the misattributed quotes are wrong. If you go back more than a few hundred years, it gets very difficult.

berkeleynerd 2y ago

This is not at all the consensus of scholars working at public secular institutions not affiliated with religious institutions of higher learning. A late dating of the formation of the canon is just as viable if not more so among this academic community.

hyfbjtdeh 2y ago
Cui bono? -- in both directions
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

ahazred8ta 2y ago

"cast the first stone" -- This was actually a criticism that the law required the accusers to bring the woman AND the man and the eyewitnesses, and the eyewitnesses must cast the first stone. Their absence invalidated the trial.

graemep 2y ago
The full phrase is "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". I do not know how that fits with eyewitnesses. How often would there be eyewitnesses to adultery anyway?
- ahazred8ta 2y ago
  Deuteronomy: Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses; he shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness. The hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people.

panick21_ 2y ago

> The gospels were written not all that long after Jesus died That highly questionable. Even the very conservative secular scholars don't believe Mark was written before 70 and John before 90. And many secular scholars believe considerably later dates. > One advantage they had over us is that writing and circulating information was an effort - they did not have social media! I would imagine believers would be motivated to be accurate. I'm sorry but that is completely at odds with everything we know from that time. There is rampant falsification, editing and addition in ancient writings. That's why we have lots of letter from Paul, some talking about things that literally didn't even exist when Paul wrote. Thus even conservative scholars don't believe all the letters are written by Paul. We have tons of faked content from back then. The bible (both old and new) is full of it. People back then even the very best ancient historians simply admitted that they made up the speeches of great generals. And there is zero evidence that the gospel were written by series historians or anybody that even attempted that. The idea that we can trust the gospel because writing was effort and nobody would ever put effort into lying is just naive.

prewett 2y ago
Since Mark 13 talks predicts the destruction of the Temple yet has no record of the fulfillment of that prophecy when the Temple was burned and destroyed and Jerusalem razed in 70, which would have been a cataclysmic event for the church, which would have had it's center in Jerusalem. Eusebius notes in his church history that no Christian died, because they left Jerusalem when the Roman army withdrew briefly because of the prophecy. So it's hard to date Mark to after 70, even if you don't believe that Mark was the written account Peter promised in one of his epistles (and presumed to be written by the Mark that acts talks of); Peter's death is usually dated to 64. > [lots of letters from Paul] talk about things that literally didn't even exist when Paul wrote Seems unlikely to me, and I've never heard any reference to them. But do you have any examples? Regarding faked content, making up the speeches of generals, etc: for one thing the Christians viewed these sayings as coming from God, so they had a definite interest in getting them right. One need not quote someone exactly to write something that is accurately reflects what he said. My dad talks about secretaries who CEOs, etc. would just say "answer this letter for me", and they knew exactly how he would respond and could write the letter for him. The apostles were alive for several decades and could correct things. Eusebius cites someone who had learned the faith from someone who was one or two people removed from the apostles, and he went and found the apostle John, and was overjoyed to find that what he had been taught was the same as what John said.

timeon 2y ago

> within the lifetimes of people who could remember him. We do not know. We have no records that are contemporary to him (if it was one person or it it was someone at all).

zifpanachr23 2y ago

And MLK, Einstein, Gandhi has the enormous advantage of the printing press and widespread access to the tools for writing as well as being in a substantially more literate time. I think it's remarkable how well something from 2000 years ago has held up despite the obvious deficiencies according to modern documentation and preservation standards. You can find far worse examples of ancient texts, they just usually don't generate as much research interest so people mostly don't argue about them publicly.

amanaplanacanal 2y ago

If by "not long after" you mean 40 to 80 years.

graemep 2y ago
I specified within lifetimes of people who know him, so 40 would fit that, 80 would be pushing it.

goatlover 2y ago

> One advantage they had over us is that writing and circulating information was an effort - they did not have social media! I would imagine believers would be motivated to be accurate. Or they were motivated to present their view of things as seen by the various pseudepigrapha, large number of Gospels by the late 2nd century, disagreements in the community evident in Paul's genuine letters, and theological differences between canonical Gospels, such as what Matthew and Luke left out or changed from Mark. In the 2nd Century, we have Church fathers railing against other Christian communities for heretical writings and teachings. There were Jewish Christians (Ebioinites) who likely saw Paul as a false prophet, There were the various so-called Gnostic communities who thought the were legitimate Christians, and the proto-orthodox. There was also Marcion with his Gospel and followers. Half the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas are similar to sayings in the Synoptics, but with a twist. Five of the 12 letters attributed to Paul were likely written later by other authors claiming to be Paul with their own theological views. Luke says things about Paul in Acts that contradict what Paul himself says in his genuine letters.