Jesus would be a historical figure. Modern historians and students agree. That tells us something, but not a great deal. Did the Gospel writers take the real man, Jesus of Nazareth, and embellish him with your things like a virgin birth, miracles, sinless life, voluntary martyr's death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven?
Most let you know today that's precisely what happened. Doesn't that appear to be the most reasonable explanation? Those "added features" seem unnatural; they seem out of place. They certainly aren't the rock-hard reality we encounter everyday.
What exactly do we use those grandiose claims of Jesus? He said he is the Son of God! Could a guy having a sound mind state that about himself? So we keep running into miracles, including raising the dead; and he himself was reported as resurrected from the grave. Not to mention addititionally there is the virgin birth. Does not the inclusion of supernatural elements make the entire story questionable?
You are aware how it is when stories are passed around. A little enhancement here, just a little trying out the facts there, and in a short time you've got a story all out of proportion to that from the original. By the time Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were placed on paper, tall tales were well established parts of the story.
However, we now realize the Late-date-for-the-Gospel theory was flawed from the beginning. The case for this was not according to evidence. It had been mere speculation, speculation to permit sufficient time for that legend surrounding Christ to develop. The facts involved tell us a different story. What evidence we are able to muster has a tendency to confirm early dates for Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Papias and Irenaeus Discredit Late Gospel Theory
In A.D. 130, Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, quoted The Elder (the apostle John) as stating that Mark accurately recorded Peter's statements regarding Jesus' actions and words. Since Mark hadn't personally witnessed the events, however, they were not designed in chronological order. However, Mark was scrupulously faithful to Peter's teachings. Nothing added, nothing omitted.
As you can tell, Papias strongly endorses the book of Mark. The sequence might be wrong, but, he assures us, fundamental essentials very words of Peter.
Irenaeus was the bishop of Lugdunum (what is now Lyons) inside a.D. 177. He was a student of Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna who had been burned in the stake in A.D. 156. Polycarp in turn would be a disciple of the apostle John.
Irenaeus lets us know that, "Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own individual dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and laying the foundations from the church. After their deaths (Paul approximately A.D. 62 and 68 and Peter about A.D. 64), Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, passed down to all of us on paper what had been preached by Peter. Luke, follower of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord himself, produced his Gospel as they was living at Ephesus in Asia."
Papias agreed saying, "Matthew recorded the 'oracles' within the Hebrew tongue." All of the early church leaders say the same thing, namely, Matthew was the first written Gospel. Just when was it written? Irenaeus indicates it had been probably produced in the early A.D. 60s. Mark's Gospel followed Matthew, Luke wrote third, and John composed his narrative a while later.
Spot the real significance of Irenaeus' comments. No Gospels ever experienced a series of oral hand-me-downs. He assures us the apostle Matthew wrote his own account of the items he'd been sent. Likewise, the apostle John produced a manuscript of what he himself had witnessed. The apostle Peter preached. Mark wrote down his words, and wrote them down accurately too, according to Papias. By the same token, Luke recorded what he heard directly from Paul.
Irenaeus was only the second generation from the apostle John. In time and in acquaintances, he was very close to the reality. He said the only real oral tradition in Mark is exactly what Peter told Mark; the only oral tradition in Luke is exactly what Paul told Luke. In Matthew and John, the oral tradition wasn't a factor at all.
Oral Tradition
What concerning the oral tradition anyway? The very first century was an oral society. Yes, they did have writing, however it was primarily a spoken word tradition rather than a paper based society like our own. We do not depend on our memories around they did in the first century. We jot it down and refer to it later, or we look it up on the computer. It's easier this way.
Before the age of the printing press, books or scrolls were too costly for the average man to possess. Whatever one needed or desired to know, he'd to carry around in the head. That required a great memory.
Gospel Authorship and Dating
Gospel of Matthew
The Gospels themselves have a number of clues giving us a rough idea of once they were written. Matthew is a great one. The early church fathers were unanimous in attributing the work to Matthew, the tax collector who left his job to follow Jesus. His occupation required him to keep records, therefore it doesn't surprise us that he had the opportunity to write.
We discover his Gospel had a distinctive Jewish style and character. Based on both Papias and Irenaeus, the first edition was written in the "Hebrew tongue." It is a Jewish book written by a Jew for a Jewish audience.
The writer starts by tracing Jesus' ancestry to Abraham, the patriarch. Throughout his narrative, Matthew is continually pointing out how Jesus is fulfilling this or that Messianic prophecy. His goal is to convince Jews, Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God based on documents they consider beyond reproach.
Matthew feels you don't need to explain Jewish customs, that is reasonable if he is addressing Jewish readers. Also he makes use of such Jewish euphemisms as "Kingdom of Heaven" and "Father in Heaven." Jews were unwilling to even mention the God. Consequently, these terms were common substitutes in their vocabulary. And just what could be more Jewish rather than speak of Jesus because the "Son of David?"
The exclusive Jewish character of Matthew suggests it was composed shortly after Jesus' crucifixion, a period when the Christian movement was almost entirely Jewish.
In the 1996 book Eyewitnesses to Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence Concerning the Origin from the Gospels, Carsten Peter Thiede, A German papyrologist, analyzes three small scraps of Matthew chapter 26 from Magdalen College at Oxford University.
He found several ancient documents which were comparable both in style and technique: the Qumran leather scroll of Leviticus, dated to the middle of the first century; an Aristophanes papyrus copy of Equites (The Knights), dated late first century B.C. to early first century A.D.; and incredibly enough, an Egyptian document actually signed and dated by three civil servants July 24, 66.
Based on these close comparisons, Thiede concludes that the three tiny fragments of Matthew chapter 26, known collectively because the Magdalen papyrus, date no later than A.D. 70. Once we have previously noted, both Irenaeus and Papias claim the initial Matthew manuscript was at Hebrew. Obviously, the Hebrew original should have predated this papyrus Greek translation.
Gospel of Luke
Perhaps the least controversial author of the Gospel writers is Luke. Most agree that the physician and sometimes traveling companion of Paul, wrote the Gospel that bears his name, that's, the Gospel of Luke.
That book is really a companion volume to the book of Acts. The language and structure of these two manuscripts indicate these were written by the same person. And they were addressed towards the same individual -- Theophilus. Luke's authorship is supported by early Christian writings like the Muratorian Canon A.D 170 and also the works of Irenaeus in A.D. 180.
Luke seems to be a well-educated gentile. His writings show he is fluent in Greek. At times his style even approaches those of classic Greek. Both of his books are rich in historical and geographical detail. As others have observed, this physician writes like an historian.
Luke informs us that the number of people had already written about Jesus' life. However, he'd like to set the record straight and correct the errors he found in those early reports. To split up fact from fiction, Luke conducts an individual investigation interviewing eyewitnesses and verifying oral accounts using the apostles. In his own words, he investigated from the start to write an orderly report for Theophilus to ensure that he or she is certain of the items he had learned. (Luke 1:3-4)
Indirect evidence suggests Luke wrote Acts in early A.D. 60's. Acts is really a good reputation for early Christianity which was centered in Jerusalem. Nevertheless, there is no mention of Jerusalem's destruction which took place A.D. 70.
Likewise, there is nothing mentioned of Nero's persecution of Christians in A.D. 64, nor does it talk about the martyrdom from the three major characters in the book: James, brother of Jesus, A.D. 62; Peter A.D. 64; and Paul a while between A.D. 62 and 68.
On the other hand, Acts does reveal from the deaths of two less prominent figures: Stephen, the first known martyr, inside a.D. 36, and also the apostle James, son of Zebedee and brother of John, inside a.D. 44. According to this indirect evidence, there's reason to believe Acts was composed inside a.D. 62 or earlier. Acts is definitely an obvious continuation of the Gospel Luke. Therefore if Acts were written by Luke no after A.D. 62, the Gospel of Luke was probably recorded before that point, presumably within the late 50's.
Carsten Thiede talks about a codex papyrus of Luke's Gospel found at the Bibliotheque in Paris. After evaluating the original document, the papyrologist decided it was in the first century A.D., only slightly older than the Magdalen Papyrus.
Later Embellishment Theory
Before we leave Luke, there's another item which must be mentioned. Skeptics, you will recall, believe that all of those miraculous events were just fictitious inventions tacked on to the original writings centuries later. Luke discredits their "later embellishment" theory.
In Acts 2:22, he quotes Peter's sermon towards the Jews at Pentecost: "Men of Israel, hear me. Jesus of Nazareth was designated by God and made recognized to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did among you thru him." Peter followed that track of: ". . . you, with the help of wicked men put him to death by nailing him towards the cross. But God raised him from the dead . . . . God has raised this Jesus alive, and we are all witnesses of the fact . . . . God makes this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." (Acts 2:23-24, 32, and 36)
Peter said essentially: You yourselves saw Jesus perform miracles. That wasn't only a man you crucified. Which was your Lord and Christ. In addition, that Man did not stay dead. God brought him back again. We know that for certain. We view him with our own eyes; heard him with our own ears; why, we even ran our fingers over his crucifixion wounds. He's alive. And he's back!
The interesting point this is how the crowd reacts. If modern skeptics were right, that is, those incredible supernatural events never really happened, we would expect the crowd to say something towards the effect: Who're you kidding? That man never performed any miracles! And he's dead. We had him die. Forget him, Peter. Get a life of your own.
But they didn't state that. Instead: "They were cut towards the heart and said: 'Brothers, what don't let do?'" (Acts 2:37) They'd seen Jesus' "miracles, wonders, and signs" and Peter used that knowledge to transform those Jews to Christianity.
Another thing. Notice that Peter doesn't shy away from Jesus' resurrection. In fact, it's the focal point of his speech. Remarkable is it not? 3,000 of these hearing Peter's words accepted the apostle's eye witnessed account. We read, "Those who accepted (Peter's) message were baptized contributing to three thousand were added to their number that day." (Acts 2:41)
Peter, John, and Paul all made good use of firsthand evidence within their writings. Peter said: We didn't constitute stories whenever we said concerning the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. (2 Peter 1:16)
John reads: We tell you what we should have seen and heard so you may have fellowship around. And our fellowship is with the daddy and the Son, Jesus. (1 John 1:3) John is referring to himself when he known the witness of Christ's death: "We know this is correct, because it was relayed through someone who saw it happen. Now you can have faith too." (John 19:35 CEV)
Also Paul, in talking with Festus and King Agrippa, tells them that Christ did precisely what Moses and the prophets said he'd do, that's, he suffered, died, and it was raised in the dead. Festus immediately questioned Paul's sanity. But Paul responds: "What I'm saying is reasonable and true. The king knows this stuff and that i can speak freely to him. I am convinced none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner." (Acts 26:25-26)
Again, spot the reaction. The interesting thing here is what King Agrippa did not say. He didn't say: This is the craziest thing I've ever heard about Paul. It has been my experience that dead people have a tendency to stay dead!
That's exactly what we should would expect Agrippa to say, unless, unless he knew something out of the ordinary had taken place. Paul made three startling claims here: First, Jesus was the long awaited Messiah and also the fulfillment of prophecy. Second, Jesus was resurrected in the grave. And maybe more and more extraordinary, Paul himself claims to have experienced and heard the resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus.
Amazingly enough, King Agrippa doesn't laugh at, ridicule, or get angry at Paul's "outrageous" claims. Apparently, Agrippa missed the remarks outrageous. He merely replies, "Do you believe in this small amount of time you are able to persuade me to become a Christian?" (Acts 26:28)
Gospel of Mark
The Gospel of Mark was very likely composed inside a.D. 50's or even the early 60's. Based on early church tradition, Mark was designed in Rome where Peter spent the final days of his life. Romans crucified Peter upside down in A.D. 64.
Mark seems to have been written for a gentile audience, possibly a Roman audience. Unlike Matthew, he explains Jewish customs and translates Aramaic words for his readers. Also Mark shows a unique interest in persecution and martyrdom - subjects of crucial importance to Roman believers of his day.
Mark's work was readily accepted, and it spread rapidly throughout Christianity. Some believe the reason it had been distributed so quickly is because it originated in Rome.
A papyrus scroll fragment of Mark 6:52-53 called 7Q5 was excavated from Qumran Cave 7. "It must be dated before A.D. 68 and may easily be as soon as A.D. 50," claims Carsten Thiede.
Although the early church said Matthew was the very first Gospel, many today think Mark wrote his account first. They base their judgment on the proven fact that Mark's book is shorter and much of the items he explained can be found in the Gospel of Matthew.
Scholars are inclined to express it was more likely that Matthew would expand on Mark's text rather that Mark would condense and then leave out areas of what Matthew wrote. Besides, all what Mark wrote supposably came directly from Peter.
The idea is the fact that one copied in the other, but independent origins really are a distinct possibility. The question remains, why would an original apostle of Christ have to rely on other people to inform him what Jesus said and did?
Both writers probably used the same oral tradition for memorized accounts of Christ's sayings and actions. It is certainly inside the realm of possibility that these bits and pieces of knowledge had already found their way into writing before Matthew and Mark composed their Gospels. The Gospel writers arranged and shaped those commonly known stories and sayings of Jesus into the more comprehensive narratives which bear their names.
Whichever Gospel was initially, there is general consensus that both Matthew and Mark appeared before Luke unveiled his Gospel. That puts the probable dates of both early compositions somewhere in the A.D. 50's. The functional point here is the period from Jesus' death towards the first three Gospels is too short for that introduction of myths and legends.
The virgin birth, miracles, and the resurrection counseled me there right from the start. Those "incredible" supernatural events were a complicated area of the original story.
Many saw and remembered Jesus' miracles, and also over five-hundred people saw the resurrected Jesus one time. Early Christianity trusted this common knowledge for recruiting sign ups. The apostles noticed that this resurrected miracle worker was both Lord and Christ. As Peter demonstrated at Pentecost, it had been a very persuasive argument.
Gospel of John
The apostle John "the disciple whom Jesus loved" may be the author. He describes "the disciple whom Jesus loved" six times without naming the name. He was prominent in early church, but his name isn't mentioned within this Gospel. That's among the little oddities of his book. "The disciple whom Jesus loved" would be a "natural" if somewhat coy way of referring to himself if John were the author. Otherwise, it's impossible to describe.
The Gospel of John has a quantity of personal eyewitness touches such as recalling the fragrance of Mary's pure nard perfume which she poured on Jesus' feet in the house at Bethany. Its keep may be the episode of Jesus writing within the dust with his finger once they brought him the woman caught in adultery.
C.S. Lewis highlights the significance of this "dust writing" is it's no significance. Whether it were an account, it would be the objective of a realistic prose fiction which never actually existed prior to the 18th century. To quote Lewis: "Surely, the only explanation of the passage would be that the thing really happened. The writer put it in due to the fact he had seen it."
Two early Christian writers, Irenaeus and Tertullian, both declare that John the apostle composed this Gospel and the internal evidence concurs. Traditionally, it's been dated around A.D. 85. Recently, some scholars have suggested an early on date, even down to the 50's with no later than the 70's. One bit of internal evidence is John 5:2, where John uses the present tense "is" instead of "was" for any pool close to the Sheep Gate. That suggests a period before A.D. 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed.
In 1935 a small fragment from the Gospel of John was discovered and dated at A.D. 125. It is called the John Ryland Manuscript. One for reds quotes John 18:31-33, and yet another sides shows verses 37-38. The importance of this find is hard to overstate, since it helps you to read the traditional date of the Gospel within the first century. Before this discovery, there is a movement among scholars to place the original composition date around A.D. 170.
Textual Criticism
There is an academic discipline called "Textual Criticism." When the original document sheds, textual critics compare all available copies to try and piece together what the original document probably said. In general the more manuscripts available and the closer they date towards the original, the better. The New Testament scores well on points.
New Testament books provide a wealth of material for the text critic scholars to evaluate: 5,147 ancient manuscripts, over 10,000 translated scripts into Latin Vulgate, and various other translations, plus a large assortment of early scripture quotations through the church fathers. Most of the variations in the copies are minor variations for example word order, spelling, grammar, or stylistic details. However, some variations make a difference. The United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament lists 2,040 teams of word variations they think Bible translators should think about.
Does that appear to be a large amount of disagreement? Actually, it represents a really small portion of the New Testament scriptures. But the important point is this: The unanimous opinion among text scholars remains intact; no disputed words affect any doctrine of the Christian faith.
Realistically that's the best Christians could hope for. Exactly the same textual criticism which analyzes all ancient text confirms the substance of the New Testament text. The ancient text experts inform us the New Testament account we have today is basically the same message that the authors recorded over nineteen centuries ago.