We have quotes, in ancient Greek, from people who lived after the events, but no direct words.
There is no handwriting, or drawing or anything left from Jesus. His disciples, knowing what they knew, and witnessing what they saw, did not think to preserve something for posterity.
Christ, being God etc, could easily have arranged to have a sign left somewhere, and which could be used to ward of the evil one.
If such a sign was found, what would be the reaction of believers?
regards
m t
I'm slightly confused here. I would think the quotations of the Lord Christ as recorded in the texts of the Bible are a sign from Him. I would think that testimony would stand. Personally I would be very suspicious of any relic purported to be of Him, for example the Grail. We all know Indiana Jones found THAT!!Hope this helps or I've helped kill another thread but I do believe the scriptures are enough to study and feed on to last many a lifetime.
Indeed, we have nothing but posthumous attributions. Anybody can say anything about somebody after they die. I could say that the resurrected personage of my deceased friend appeared to me in the restroom at a McDonalds, and while you might not believe, you couldn't exactly refute me. I think such is the case with the Gospel accounts.Originally Posted by mike thomas
The question as I understand it is that there are no writings by the hand of Jesus, attributable to his own hand in his own time. All the gospel narratives, anecdotes, letters, etc. occurred as early as 30 years after his supposed death, and perhaps as late as 60 to 90 years later, in the case of the Gospel According to John. In other words, there is no letter with Jesus' signature. No piece of wood he carved, not even anything written by someone who was actually with him at the time of his life. Everything we know about Jesus came from what people wrote down decades after his time.I'm slightly confused here. I would think the quotations of the Lord Christ as recorded in the texts of the Bible are a sign from Him. I would think that testimony would stand.
Here is a quote by Bible scholar Bart Ehrman, which came out of a debate with evangelist William Lane Craig in Worcester, Massachusetts, in 2006:
http://www.holycross.edu/departments...transcript.pdf
What do we have with the Gospels of the New Testament? Well, unfortunately we’re not as well off as we would like to be. We’d like to be extremely well off because the Gospels tell us about Jesus, and they are our best sources for Jesus. But how good are they as historical sources? I’m not questioning whether they’re valuable as theological sources or sources for religious information. But how good are they as historical sources? Unfortunately, they’re not as good as we would like. The Gospels were written 35 to 65 years after Jesus’ death—35 or 65 years after his death, not by people who were eyewitnesses, but by people living later. The Gospels were written by highly literate, trained, Greek-speaking Christians of the second and third generation. They’re not written by Jesus’ Aramaic-speaking followers. They’re written by people living 30, 40, 50, 60 years later. Where did these people get their information from? I should point out that the Gospels say they’re written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But that’s just in your English Bible. That’s the title of these Gospels, but whoever wrote the Gospel of Matthew didn’t call it the Gospel of Matthew. Whoever wrote the Gospel of Matthew simply wrote his Gospel, and somebody later said it’s the Gospel according to Matthew. Somebody later is telling you who wrote it. The titles are later additions. These are not eyewitness accounts. So where did they get their stories from?
Last edited by earthboar; 08-12-2007 at 09:51 AM. Reason: to answer the first respondent
"Indeed, we have nothing but posthumous attributions. Anybody can say anything about somebody after they die. I could say that the resurrected personage of my deceased friend appeared to me in the restroom at a McDonalds, and while you might not believe, you couldn't exactly refute me. I think such is the case with the Gospel accounts."
But you would be slightly more convincing if you and all your friends were prepared to die rather than admit that your deceased friend had not appeared to you in Macdonalds.
Voices mysterious far and near,
Sound of the wind and sound of the sea,
Are calling and whispering in my ear,
Whifflingpin! Why stayest thou here?
I agree on this, mon ami, but I think the movie did get one point right. Jesus was a simple man. His work experience was a carpenter. There would be no "Holy Grail" as in some large Gold or Silver chalice if it were the cup from the Last Supper. Wooden or earthenware, and very anceint, not bright and new looking. But seriously, ever noted the wording of these two scriptures:I'm slightly confused here. I would think the quotations of the Lord Christ as recorded in the texts of the Bible are a sign from Him. I would think that testimony would stand. Personally I would be very suspicious of any relic purported to be of Him, for example the Grail. We all know Indiana Jones found THAT!!
Matt.12
[39] But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
Matt.16
[4] A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.
Perhaps we are not meant to look for signs. Most of us, if we would be truly honest, find it difficult enough to simply try to "love thy neighbor as thyself." We grow angry without cause, bicker and fight, become selfish, hold grudges, and are apt to be quick with our mouth. And please note I said "we" which includes me.
God Bless
Pen
Some of us laugh
Some of us cry
Some of us smoke
Some of us lie
But it's all just the way
that we cope with our lives...
That is, indeed, how the argument goes, Whifflingpin, and a good point it is. The willingness to martyr oneself for an ideal is a real challenge to the skeptics.
That kind of starts to move me toward the subject of the psychological reality of one's spiritual convictions, and I thank you for budging me in that direction. As mtpspur correctly observed,
And, it's not because I agree with him on the factual merits of the historical truth of the gospels, but on their personal meaning.I would think the quotations of the Lord Christ as recorded in the texts of the Bible are a sign from Him. I would think that testimony would stand.
I am led to wonder why some of Jesus' disciples were willing to risk their necks to propagate his teachings, was it because they so believed he really did rise from the dead? No, I don't really believe that. I think they were convinced by the wisdom of his living message. It's like being a salesperson. If you don't have a strong belief in the product, you're not going to be convinced that it is something of value. I think the disciples were sincere that what they were promoting was something of value for their time.
In response to Pendragon:
That might be what I would write into the narration if I mythologized the life of a long-since deceased human being I was trying to transform into a god through my writings. Just add to the story, "and if you go looking for evidence to confirm or deny my story, then you are evil and adulterous." See the problem? That kind of ad hoc scare tactic is still used by politicians today to keep the skeptical minded from looking too closely at what it is they are signing off to. It doesn't change our problem from an historic point of view, which is that those are sayings attributed to Jesus, but we don't know that he really said them because they were written decades after what was said to have occurred. And that brings us exactly back to the question of the first post.
Last edited by earthboar; 08-12-2007 at 03:57 PM. Reason: elucidation, capitulation
"I am led to wonder why some of Jesus' disciples were willing to risk their necks to propagate his teachings, was it because they so believed he really did rise from the dead? No, I don't really believe that. I think they were convinced by the wisdom of his living message."
"Willing to risk their necks" is a feeble description - I understand that ten out of the twelve disciples chosen by Jesus did in fact suffer martyrdom, as did many others who met or knew him, starting with Stephen, who died, not repeating the Sermon on the Mount, but proclaiming the resurrection.
Paul, who probably did not know Jesus, but who was martyred before some of those who did, said that if Christ was not raised from the dead then his faith was vain. That was not sales hype in praise of a good teacher, it was a statement of a belief worth dying for.
Voices mysterious far and near,
Sound of the wind and sound of the sea,
Are calling and whispering in my ear,
Whifflingpin! Why stayest thou here?
Why would you second guess their stated words? I think few people surrender their lives for teachings that don't connect to eternity; having seen Christ's resurrection gave the apostles the power of knowing that death was not to be feared. As to your earlier comment on the difficulty of verifying Christ historically - surely you know that much of history is based upon eyewitness account - much of which could not stand up to our modern ideas of verification. We're quite willing to accept some archeologist's vision of ancient society, but not the eyewitness testimony?
I fully disagree; are you aware of the kinds of deaths some of the these men and women underwent for their beliefs? Sorry - I do not think people submit to this simply for "wisdom." Paul made it clear that if the resurrection of Christ is not true, than nothing else in Christianity matters because nothing else in Christianity can provide salvation/eternal life.
According to the Bible, Christ was seen by 500+ individuals after his death on the cross. Your doubt about the words of Jesus must be applied to many things said by many individuals throughout history; don't you see that you can't dismiss the historicity of Jesus without bringing many other aspects of accepted history into question? Isn't the real issue about who Jesus was? If he was the son of God, why would we doubt the veracity of the apostles accounts?
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
As Matthew was one of the Twelve Disciples of Christ, and as Wiff pointed out, very willing to die for what he believed to be the truth, (Matthew, the tax-collector from Nazareth who wrote a gospel in Hebrew, was preaching in Ethiopia when he suffered martyrdom by the sword (about 60 A.D.). http://www.allaboutfollowingjesus.or...he-martyrs.htm
I think we can safely say he, knowing what he preached was considered heresy and punishable by death would not lie.
God bless.
Pen
Some of us laugh
Some of us cry
Some of us smoke
Some of us lie
But it's all just the way
that we cope with our lives...
It's the question of whose words might we be second-guessing. Are they the writer's words, or Jesus' words? This isn't a discussion about faith, but that the earliest known accounts of Jesus don't seem to appear until about 60 C.E. Bringing the question back to the original post, were there no literate disciples among Jesus' followers to write down what he said at the time of his life?
Much of modern history is documented as it happens. What we have with the gospels is a different form of journalism. They are narratives that vary, one from the other, and written decades after the supposed event.
Martyrdom exists today, in cultures by people who have never witnessed a resurrected Mohammed, let's say, or some other prophet. The thought of the bravery of the early Christians to die for their convictions is as powerful today as it was to Constantine, who probably witnessed such martyrdoms and was impressed by their resolve. Yet, by 300 C.E., though many were willing to die for their belief, it is unlikely that all those that were martyred actually experienced a resurrection vision for themselves.
Paul had a powerful epiphany, which seemed true unto himself. He was obviously good at convincing others of the reality of his personal experience, and the reality of someone he had never actually known.
I'm not questioning that modern followers have equally strong convictions. I'm simply looking at the provenance of the record. To reiterate, I think the original poster was very direct about asking why there was no written record from the time of Christ. That gospels and epistles were plentiful by the end of the First Century is without dispute. That person pointed out--justly so, I think--that provenance goes no further back than about 60 C.E.
Why not?
The Qumran Community were still writing Dead Sea Scrolls at that time. We have Dead Sea Scrolls written at the time of Jesus! Not just scrolls, but inkwells with dried ink in them. Artifacts from 0-to-32 C.E. abound in the Judean Desert. They don't mention Jesus of Nazareth, however. Maybe he visited Qumran, maybe not, who knows? The Qumran community wasn't that far from Jerusalem, so it is conceivable Jesus might have visited them. The point is, people were writing during that period. Everyone, that is, but Jesus and his disciples. Maybe there are some primary sources that simply have not been discovered? Maybe there are primary sources that have been discovered, but are in private hands, and are being deliberately silenced, for some reason.
(see: The Jesus Papers, Exposing the Greatest Coverup in History)
Flavius Josephus, a contemporary, was also writing during that time. Even though his famous lines in reference to Jesus have since been discredited as very late European forgeries, his other accounts of the 2nd Jewish revolt stand, as does his description of the three sects of Judaism--Pharissee, Saddccee, and Essene.
Ok, well, whether that is so or not falls out of the scope of this thread. When I quoted Prof. Ehrman, I was doing so because he is a respected scholar in the field, and also happens to be a skeptic. I pulled his quote from an argument against the resurrection as history, but the statement I used directly applies to this conversation: The earliest gospels were narratives of uncertain origin written beginning in the third decade after the death of Jesus.
To Pendragon:
I think it is not safe to say that Matthew the Disciple was the actual author of the Gospel According to Matthew. We know only that it was a document attributed to Matthew. I don't think there is an actual copy of the Gospel of Matthew that was signed by Matthew. Do you know of such a copy? Pseudepigrapha were common between 300 B.C.E. and 300 C.E. That's 600 years at least of writers attributing their documents to more famous personages.
Thanks!
Last edited by earthboar; 08-13-2007 at 03:37 PM. Reason: qualifying - additional response
If we treat the gospels as we treat any book we can actually admire the artistic aspect of them. How Mathew use references to the old testament knowing his public had those books as references or how John seeks allegories to enrich the spiritual side of his story. But the main part is : Neither of them (the 4 gospels) are works of History but story. Even if we analyse the historians of that time (Flavio Josefo among them) we are going to see that the style of the text was different from the gospels.
It is pretty obvious that the writers of the gospels are not worried with the veracidity of the story they told (even because the difference is that we worry about it now, they didn't, so they do not have the same care) and that is why the gospels are a doubtful source for History.
OK. That is a line of thinking that may or may not have a valid reasoning. I will concede that.
To take this to more recent levels, the plays of Shakespeare have always been of dispute as to whether or not he actually authored them. I have it on good authority that his signature never spells his last name the same way twice. So what we have is a series of plays attributed to Shakespeare, but we cannot be certain that he wrote all or most of them. What do we go by to claim authenticity? The manner of writing, and the language use, the way the words are put together. But, what one man may do another may imitate. So we are back to square one. We either accept the plays or we go with the scholars that proclaim them written by others.
The same goes for The Gospel of Matthew. We either accept that Matthew authored it, or go with the ones who say nay.
God Bless
Pen
Some of us laugh
Some of us cry
Some of us smoke
Some of us lie
But it's all just the way
that we cope with our lives...
That make no sense at all.
There was a playwritter named Shakespeare and that bulk of plays that are atributed to him have several similarities that make people believe with a certain degree that are from the same man. Some people still dispute who was this man.
The Gospels are never atributed to Mathew, there is no texts to be used a comparassion (if I am not mistaken there is not even a original language source), and they are named "Mathew" latter and not based in anything but some tradition.
Shakespeare texts are contested as being his work - and we have evidences to believe this - so it is very reasonable what earthboar propose - There is no way to claim any gospel was written by eyewittness since even the source that selected the gospels centuries ago and we can have any evidence of the authorship. (Comparing with Shakespeare is silly, if we knew for sure about Shakespeare it would not affect the fact we do not know about the gospels, as we are not sure about Homer)
I don't think it has ever been disproven that the gospel was written, or at least originated from Matthew. One problem with the gospels, which isn't even a problem to me, is the possibility of their having originated as an oral tradition. I allow for that possibility, and I equally allow that a Third Century Gospel of Mary Magdalene was, in fact, inspired by the words of the long-since dead Mary Magdalene, companion to Jesus.
To tie this back to the O.P., if nothing in written form survived the Jesus years, then perhaps the orally recorded history did. With a stern caveat: The stories were reported and re-reported, until they achieved mythical and fantastic proportions, something like Louis Wain's progression of cat paintings.
We have now drifted so far off the original problem, thank you, Earthboar for the stern beware, that we were in danger of the thread locking. Camillo, I was just trying to point out a comparison. I am sorry that you find it irrelevant, based on the fact that even if we knew for certain about Shakespeare we would still have the original problem with Matthew.
Earthboar, I would hesitate to say that no written work by Matthew ever existed. Having been a tax collector, he would have certainly been educated enough to read and write, since he would have been required to keep records. Oral tradition was something that was passed down, but the Scribes of the Levites were always at work copying new scrolls of the Old Testament. The scrolls were copied word for word, ready for the day when one wore out and needed to be replaced.
A good point on that is when the wise men came seeking Jesus and asked Herod the king.
Matt.2
[1] Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
[2] Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
[3] When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
[4] And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.
[5] And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,
[6] And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.
He knew where to look for the information, in the scrolls, and the scribes knew chapter and verse.
I know from the KJV that at least one more book is missing, for Paul says
Col.4
[13] For I bear him record, that he hath a great zeal for you, and them that are in Laodicea, and them in Hierapolis.
[15] Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.
[16] And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.
So the Bible I read seems short by one book. If the scholars read this and had that book, I wonder why they would leave it out?
God Bless
Pen
Some of us laugh
Some of us cry
Some of us smoke
Some of us lie
But it's all just the way
that we cope with our lives...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
