did you know...

[DeathAngel]

yes this is a did you know,

did you know that 2 of the dudes who wrote the bible never walked with jesus/experienced a darn thing with the guy?

i dunno the origins/writings of the bible are interesting...

there's supposed to be some religion, led by women, that inspired christianity,
called mithraism

theory: guys didn't like the women worshipping a woman, so they made a dude version, in which god was a dude

once again a theory,
but they have good leads,

sorry, the rest of the information has slipped my well done mind...

[Redzeppelin]

yes this is a did you know,

did you know that 2 of the dudes who wrote the bible never walked with jesus/experienced a darn thing with the guy?

The Bible was composed by many individuals, very few of which actually had personal contact with Jesus - so? Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah etc never actually met Jesus. So? Is this supposed to invalidate the Bible in some way?

Are you trying to discredit the New Testament? The books didn't have to be written by an apostle - they could be written by an associate of the apostle.

[Dark Star]

...Try every 'dude' who wrote the Bible, not two. Not a single writer from the New Testament actually knew him. It's pretty much all third hand.

[Redzeppelin]

...Try every 'dude' who wrote the Bible, not two. Not a single writer from the New Testament actually knew him. It's pretty much all third hand.

That would be incorrect. Peter was a disciple; John was a disciple; James was Jesus' half-brother; Matthew was a disciple; Paul spoke personally with Jesus. What are you talking about?

[bibliophile190]

Do you have any links or quotes you could show us that actually prove what you're saying? What are your refrences? That's a pretty big statement to be making without proof.

[Pendragon]

That would be incorrect. Peter was a disciple; John was a disciple; James was Jesus' half-brother; Matthew was a disciple; Paul spoke personally with Jesus. What are you talking about?

I think what DeathAngel is referring to is that the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Mark were written by associates of Paul, and were not disciples. Luke also is the writer of Acts, which is addressed to the same person and refers to "the former treatise" he had written.

Here is a point to consider. A person who professes Christianity also professes a moment of change in their life, brought about by Faith in the Grace of God through the blood of Jesus Christ. One could argue that any Christian has met Jesus in that sense.

Now from the viewpoint that DarkAngel and others are pointing out, some did not know Jesus personally, or have any first hand knowledge of his life and ministry. The highly educated Luke (he was a Physician) would have likely done quite a bit of research and personal interviews. John Mark, on the other hand, is a bit of an enigma. At one point in Acts, Paul refuses to let Mark go with him on a missionary trip because he had quit early on a previous one. Later, he specifically asks for Mark, calling him “profitable”.

God Bless

Pen

[Orionsbelt]

A quick wicki turns up some interesting speculation. I knew that several roman traditions were incorporated into early christian practice. I was also aware of zoroastarian influences but it appears this was a major form of worship across the empire at the same time as budding christianity. I actually thought it predated the whole christian era. Seem christians borrowed heavily ... or perhaps it was to way in terms of rituals and symbols. The idea of the bull in Mithrasm goes way back.

I don't know where the women worshipping women came from... dudes being dudes and all, I'd of thought they would have been ok with worshipping women themselves.

[Redzeppelin]

Do you have any links or quotes you could show us that actually prove what you're saying? What are your refrences? That's a pretty big statement to be making without proof.

First - before resorting to "proof," I would ask you why church history is insufficient? What good reason do you have to doubt the authorship of these books?

That said, I will say this: Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, was a student of Polycarp (bishop of Smyrna), who had personally been a disciple of John. In 180 AD Irenaeus passed on the history of the gospels that he learned from Polycarp, who had in turn received his information from John. This history is corroborated by Papias, an associate of Polycarp's. Clement, who assumed leadership in Rome i nthe latter part of the first century, wrote a letter to the Corinthians around 95 AD that quoted from 10 different NT books. Clement also recorded how the Gospel Mark was written and that it had Peter's blessing. If you research these references, you will see how the apostles gave their blessings to the books written by those who did not personally know Jesus. Peter gave Mark's rendition his blessing, and scholars acknowledge that both Luke and Matthew used Mark's version in the recording of their own versions. Many scholars point out the the fact that lesser known individuals wrote the gospels (instead of the assumedly obvious choice of the actual disciples) lends credence to their authenticity.

[Dark Star]

That would be incorrect. Peter was a disciple; John was a disciple; James was Jesus' half-brother; Matthew was a disciple; Paul spoke personally with Jesus. What are you talking about?

Those are simply names given to the Gospels. They are not actually believed to be the people who wrote them. Much like it isn't believed that Thomas wrote the Gospel of Thomas.

[MaryLupin]

The most commonly accepted (by theologians and other gospel theorists) theory of the source of the canonical gospels is called the "four source theory." The four-source theory says that Matthew and Luke are based on a lost gospel that is known as "Q." Matthew also has a third source, "M". Luke has a fourth source, "L". L and M are probably from oral tradition.

Matthew was probably written around 85 CE. The authorship is unknown.

Mark was probably written between 57 and 75 CE. The authorship is unknown but some theologians believe it may have been the John-Marcus mentioned in Acts. In other words, not Mark the Apostle.

Luke was probably written around 90 CE. Authorship unknown although "Luke" was arguably the best educated of the four authors and some gospel theorists have argued for a woman writer based on the role and importance of women in the text.

John was probably the latest gospel written sometime before 100CE. This one seems to have been written by one unknown person and heavily edited by another.

A key thing to remember is that these texts had a social purpose and an intended audience (as do all good pieces of writing). Luke, for example, promotes a Christianity (Paul's version) amongst gentiles. Mark was for early Christians and Matthew was for a Jewish audience. They are pieces of rhetoric, whatever their status as "revealed" knowledge. Another key fact is that the earliest surviving text (the actual object) was a copy (an unknown times translated and copied itself) from about 120-130 CE. Also amongst early Christians there were not 4 gospels but more like 40.

[MaryLupin]

The Mithraic connection you have made has to do with the birthday of the sun that was celebrated on December 25 (3-4) days after the winter solstice. (note: the sun reaches an apparent standstill on Dec 18 and does not appear to move until 3-4 days after the solstice (Dec 21-22). December 25 represents the day when the sun can be seen by the average person to have inched closer to spring - hence the birth of the sun.) The celebration was pivotal in pagan society (and still is actually) and could not be suppressed. So instead Christians celebrated the birth of the "son" instead of the birth of the "sun." Mithras was one of the sun-related gods and was worshipped in some parts of the Greco-Roman empire during this sun-still time.

The majority of scriptural evidence suggests that Jesus was not born on December 25. Some evidence (dating by John the Baptist's birth) suggests he was born in the Fall (September or October) probably around 4 BCE. He probably died either in the year 30 or 33 CE in the month of April.

Elaine Pagels wrote a book called Adam, Eve and the Serpent about the way in which ideas of sexuality and moral freedom developed in the first 4 centuries (or so) of Christianity. She marks a great transition in the idea of sex and its "goodness" from the pagan/Judaic roots of Christianity to the time of Augustine. In Augustine sex is linked with original sin. It was not so 4 centuries before. The changes elucidated in the text reflect the changing status of women in the same 4 centuries.

A summary of the argument can be found at this website. (http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/book-sum/serpent.html) What Pagels does, which is what every good interpreter of an old text must do, is put the text in its proper social context. She examines the surrounding views of sexuality and women's place and she looks at how pagans saw the world and practiced their faiths. What she does is show that Christian theology and practice as we know it today developed as an opponent of pagan practices. That is, paganism was competition and Christianity fought it by saying that major pagan practices were not to be followed, tolerated or that they were downright evil. And when that didn't work, they incorporated them into Christianity (i.e. December 25). So, as it turns out, the main reason for the inclusion of celibacy in the Christian ideology was because pagans celebrated sexuality (and did not frown on homosexuality or abortion--which explains those policies as well).

(Last note: before someone goes ballistic - I am not saying pagan society of the time was gender-equal or that the role of women was ideal. With respect to the role of women in the early church the Pauline letters make an interesting study especially once one understands what Paul [and the other writers of the Pauline letters] was competing with.)

[weepingforloman]

The most commonly accepted (by theologians and other gospel theorists) theory of the source of the canonical gospels is called the "four source theory." The four-source theory says that Matthew and Luke are based on a lost gospel that is known as "Q." Matthew also has a third source, "M". Luke has a fourth source, "L". L and M are probably from oral tradition.

Matthew was probably written around 85 CE. The authorship is unknown.

Mark was probably written between 57 and 75 CE. The authorship is unknown but some theologians believe it may have been the John-Marcus mentioned in Acts. In other words, not Mark the Apostle.

Luke was probably written around 90 CE. Authorship unknown although "Luke" was arguably the best educated of the four authors and some gospel theorists have argued for a woman writer based on the role and importance of women in the text.

John was probably the latest gospel written sometime before 100CE. This one seems to have been written by one unknown person and heavily edited by another.

A key thing to remember is that these texts had a social purpose and an intended audience (as do all good pieces of writing). Luke, for example, promotes a Christianity (Paul's version) amongst gentiles. Mark was for early Christians and Matthew was for a Jewish audience. They are pieces of rhetoric, whatever their status as "revealed" knowledge. Another key fact is that the earliest surviving text (the actual object) was a copy (an unknown times translated and copied itself) from about 120-130 CE. Also amongst early Christians there were not 4 gospels but more like 40.
Given that I attend a very liberal (theologically) Catholic school, I have heard this before, and it is full of holes. For instance, most claim that John was written for a Jewish audience. And yet, in the text itself, John translates an Aramaic expression... Any Jew in the Palestine region would speak Aramaic. Additionally, they claim John was not the author. Well, John the apostle is never mentioned by name in the Gospel of John (though he is in every other one), pointing to him as author. There are numerous other examples.

[Dark Star]

It seems very odd that the man lived until 100 AD in an age where people were lucky to hit thirty five....and that he is the author of that Gospel when no serious theologian or historian believes the other three gospels were written by the folks they were named after.

The fact that the person didn't use his name in the Gospel itself doesn't make it likely that he was the author when the whole thing is put into perspective.

[MaryLupin]

Given that I attend a very liberal (theologically) Catholic school...

I realize that this is supposed to establish your authority and therefore both your veracity and credibility but if it is merely a question of relative authority then I am afraid Willem Cornelis Van Unnik, J.A.T. Robinson and H. Mulder have got you beat.


I have heard this before, and it is full of holes. For instance, most claim that John was written for a Jewish audience. And yet, in the text itself, John translates an Aramaic expression... Any Jew in the Palestine region would speak Aramaic.

Cite your sources please.

You might want to read the theorists I mention above.
ex1: "The purpose of St. John's gospel" by van Unnik
ex2: "The destination and purpose of St. John's gospel" by J.A.T. Robinson
ex3: "The Gospel of John and the Jews: The Story of a Religious Divorce" (http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/research/cjl/CBA_Seminar/townsend.htm) by John Townsend.

Maybe we can discuss Townsend's scriptural evidence for Christian anti-semitism?


Additionally, they claim John was not the author. Well, John the apostle is never mentioned by name in the Gospel of John (though he is in every other one), pointing to him as author. There are numerous other examples.

Let me parse this...John the apostle is never mentioned by name in the gospel of John...OK, simple enough. John the apostle is is mentioned in every other gospel...OK, again simple enough. But linking the two as evidence that John the Apostle is the author?

[weepingforloman]

The point is that an author might not name himself in a book, but he was always referred to by name in the other gospels. The fact that the name John is only used to refer to the Baptist in the Gospel of John would suggest that John the Apostle was writing.

[MaryLupin]

Or perhaps some other person, much later, wanting to claim the authority of John the Apostle and so wrote it in his name?

[DeathAngel]

I know it was composed by many dudes, but that poses a huge problem,
you dunno if it really is what it is,
i mean some guy could've added a little too much,
especially since it had to be hand written, each time they copied the book,
i mean is there a solid track of who had copied it, who hadn't...

[MaryLupin]

i mean is there a solid track of who had copied it, who hadn't...

Oh no, not at all. Scholars can't even agree who wrote the original version let alone how many times it has been copied and or edited to suit the needs of the population. This is just one reason that it always amazes me when anyone wants to take anything like this literally. Regardless of whether Jesus was a god in flesh, the books themselves have mundane histories and as anyone knows who has tried to translate text from one language to another, there are always (no matter how faithful the copyist) going to be misinterpretations and skewed meanings.

The simplest things can change meanings. Like if I say "you over there" I could mean a single person of either gender or I could mean a group of people who are all men, or a group of people all women or a mixed gender group. Without context there is no way to know. So if I am writing in a language that has a word for "you" that really means "you-single-male person" and another word for "you" that really means "you-women" how am I going to translate that into English without having these huge hyphenated terms?

There is a mechanical translation of Genesis available now. There are some sample pages online (http://mthb.ancient-hebrew.org/mtg_sample3.html). If you read it you realize that the land is a "she" and that darkness and light are a "he." As you continue to read it you realize this is a deeply gendered story in ways that never come out in English translations. I mean in Genesis 1:11 literally translated "the land will make grass sprout" is really "she-will-make-Sprout the-Land Grass"

I mean what if the current bible that is taught in churches still referred to Elohim as he sometimes and she other times and as they on other occasions? Can you imagine?