This is nonsense. Josephus is at best, part interpolation, meaning that it can only be a report of hearsay. As for the Talmud: please stop embarrassing yourself... these works come far too late to be an actual historical report of the jesus of the gospels, and the idea that they refer to such a being is ridiculous.

    Apparently you don't even know what Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon is.  A Lexicon is merely a fancy name for a dictionary (Like a French-English dictionary).  It's not some ancient letter or a book containing "statements" and certaintly not "written entirely in Greek." (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon was first published in 1885)  I've heard dumb things on this board, but this takes the cake.

 Todangst, there are basically two issues I will now discuss with you:

1. Evidence for the apostles

2. Tacitus

First, in response to your question on who to cite, my answer is, anyone. Just give the source from where the quote is derived. Its interesting that you accused me of engaging in ad hominems, then turned around and referred to me an "Asshole" and "%$#" (I cannot even say it).

Ok, the apostles. There are several reasons why I would argue for the existance of the apostles.

1. The New Testament is a story of their lives and teachings It was written by apostles with the exception of Luke, who was an historian. He wrote Luke and Acts. The traditional authorship each Gospel is defended by many outstanding scholars. ( see Drane, Introducing the NT, chap 11. Gutherie presents detailed overviews of the present critical discussions (pp. 43-53 [Matthew], pp. 81-84 [Mark, pp. 113-125 [Luke], pp. 252-283 [John]. Habermas, Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus, p. 63 presents a lenghty list of some contemporary scholars who accept the traditional authors (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John). Also, the NT is by far the best attested document in classical history, boasting some 5,000 Greek texts and over 20,000 altogether,

2. Josephus mentions some of the apostles by name including John the Baptist.

3. The historical apostles founded historical churches (Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and Rome. Thomas went to India. We have ancient records showing all of this.

4. Non-NT Christian Patristics

CLEMENT

He knew the apostles and wrote about them in his epistle to the Corinthians, dated AD 95.

Ignatius: He wrote seven letters to six churches, and one to Polycarp (<= he knew the apostle John personally. These letters are early witnesses to Christian doctrine. They include several historical references to Jesus, Pilate and Mary (see for example "Trallians&quot. He also speaks of the other apostles and Jesus in "Smyrnaeans."

Quadratus

 Same thing echoed in his writings. I can also get into Barnabas and Justin Martyr.

EUSEBIUS

 He was the first Christian historian. No, I didn't say mythologist. I said historian; meaning, he wrote about history. Eusebius stated that Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome during the time of Nero. (see HE II, 25).

Eusebius also recorded the words of Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, who wrote to Soter, bishop of Rome in 170 speaking on how Peter and Paul had been in Corinth and how they taught in Italy. (ibid).

IRENAUS

 He was a disciple of Polycarp. The latter was a disciple of the Apostle John himself. Irenaus stated:

"The apostles left to their successors their own place of teaching authority." (Adv. Haer. III, 3. PG 7: 848)

CLEMENT

 He knew some of the apostles personally. He mentions Paul in (PG 7:849-51).

Anyway, I can continue but I hope you got my point. There is more then enough sufficient evidence to believe in the historicity of the apostles. I mentioned before the "Liberian Catalogue." This is an ancient record of the popes from Peter to their current pope. And the "Poem Against Marcion" speaks of Peter.

Laughs and laughs. It's like watching someone on prozac rocking to and fro, sucking on their thumb.

You didn't say them word for word, but you did say them. The proof is all over. Please continue to deny it and make a full fledged liar of yourself.

Liar. What was the point of bringing it up if it had nothing to do with proof, which is the specific topic we have running here?

Ah, there you are saying it again.

And yet you mentioned them in a topic where evidence for or against jesus' existance is being presented.

You hadn't before, but you have now.

Not at all. You're just doing intellectual backflips in a desperated attempt to withdraw your own comments. Pathetic.

Apatheon, I hate to say this but....the Gospels were not written by disciples of Jesus. Especially since there is no way illiterate Jewish fisherman could learn Koine Greek.

Furthermore, if all the gospels were eyewitness accounts, then the writers would not need to use outside sources to write about what they witnessed with their own eyes. Matthew and Luke draw heavily (sometimes word for word) off Mark. The lesson about being humble like a child can be found in Mark 9:33-37, Matt 18:1-5, and Luke 9:46-48 (one of many examples). Also, Matt and Luke used the Q document (a list of sayings of Jesus not found in Mark or John). The author of Luke even admits to not being an eyewitness (Luke 1:1-4). 

Mark was written around 70 AD. So it is very possible that the author talked to people who knew Jesus. Matt and Luke don't come until the end of the 1st Century, so that why they mainly drew off Mark and Q to write their accounts.

Finally, John could have been written over a period of time and could have been originally written by an eyewitness (John 21:20-25). However, this is a highly disputed claim.

1st (and not to you Apotheon) if Judaism is true(by this I mean the Old Testament), that doesn't make Christianity untrue.  

2nd Apotheon, I'm Christian, and actually a dispinsationalist (sp?), and of course there are some Jews that believe Jesus and some that don't. My only point is, if (and I do mean if) it is ever proven that Jesus was not real the new testament would be a lie, however the Old Testament may still be true.

 Actually I have a computer version which is in English. What I have is called Thayer's Greek Definitions, so I'm not sure if that is exactly the same book as you've mentioned.

Sigh! Before I can even catch my breath I'm forced to refute more errors. I'm going to have to take a leave of absence for a while after this. First, what is your proof the Gospels were not written by the disciples? The authenticity of the Gospel was maintained by the ancient Church and even contamporary scholarship, with the exception of a few liberals. I can give you multiple resources showing that there is a huge consensus of scholars who believe the Gospels were written by the apostles. I have already listed some in a previous post. Second, koine Greek was the general language in that area at that time. Koine was common street language. The Alexandrian/Hellenized Jews brought it to the Holy Land and the Jews learned it.

Luke was not an apostle, but he relied on apostolic reports (see Luke 1, Acts 1). And "Q" is only theoretical to exist. There is no evidence it ever existed. Peter is probably behind the book of Mark, according to scholars.

Your dates are off.  Everything was written between 40-60 AD.

Of course its disputed. What else would atheists have to do with their time?

Below are some possibilities 

1) The commom answer to this is that the disciples (being Jewish) still believed Jesus was going to quickly return and set up his kingdom. It took them a while to finally realize that Jesus had a very different opinion about when he was going to return.

2) The disciples had more urgent matters to attend to.  (Like converting people and setting up the Church)

3) Paper was expensive and Judas stole a lot of their money. They had to wait till they could afford paper and writing instruments.

4) The theoretical Gospel Q was written around 33 or 34 A.D.

5) There are earlier Gospels that we don't have today. 

Well said. Interesting how the theists in this thread are refuting the more outlandish claims from fellow theists. Well done.

Bingo!

I am glad that you say "the author" and not "Mark" because this indicates to me that you accept that the work is anonymous. Is this correct?

Indeed. I am glad to hear from a theist who knows his facts.

Let me now discuss why I believe that Mark is actually midrash, and not an eyewitness account.

There are very good reasons to question the claim that the Gospels of the New Testament are, or rely upon, actual eyewitness accounts.

First, we need consider that all of the Gospels appear to owe their existence to the first "Gospel", the book of "Mark"

All the Gospels derive their basic story of Jesus of Nazareth from a single source: whoever produced the first version of Mark. That Matthew and Luke are reworkings of Mark with extra, mostly teaching, material added is now an almost universal scholarly conclusion, while many also consider that John has drawn his framework for Jesus’ ministry and death from a Synoptic source as well. We thus have a Christian movement spanning half the empire and a full century which nevertheless has managed to produce only one version of the events that are supposed to lie at its inception. Acts, as an historical witness to Jesus and the beginnings of the Christian movement, cannot be relied upon, since it is a tendentious creation of the second century, dependent on the Gospels and designed to create a picture of Christian origins traceable to a unified body of apostles in Jerusalem who were followers of an historical Jesus. Many scholars now admit that much of Acts is sheer fabrication.

- Earl Doherty, The Jesus Puzzle.

So, we do not have 'four' accounts, we have one.

Next, we must recognize that the book of "Mark" as well as all the other "Gospel" accounts, are anonymous:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_gospels_are_anonymous_works_and_none_are_eyewitness_accounts

As Thomas Paine first noted in "The Age of Reason", the value of testimony is based on the credibility of the witness. An anonymous witness, therefore, is of questionable value at best.

Then we must consider that there are no contemporary historical confirmations of the Gospels:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_silence_that_screams_no_contemporary_historical_accounts_for_jesus

Finally, historical and literary analysis provides a good grounds for holding that the book of "Mark" is 'Midrash', i.e. a set of stories that follow the rely on the Jewish practice of drawing on scriptural themes and passages to create new stories and homilies.

Not only do the Gospels contain basic and irreconcilable differences in their accounts of Jesus, they have been put together according to a traditional Jewish practice known as "midrash", which involved reworking and enlarging on scripture. This could entail the retelling of older biblical stories in new settings. Thus, Mark’s Jesus of Nazareth was portrayed as a new Moses, with features that paralleled the stories of Moses. Many details were fashioned out of specific passages in scripture. The Passion story itself is a pastiche of verses from the Psalms, Isaiah and other prophets, and as a whole it retells a common tale found throughout ancient Jewish writings, that of the Suffering and Vindication of the Innocent Righteous One. It is quite possible that Mark, at least, did not intend his Gospel to represent an historical figure or historical events, and designed it to provide liturgical readings for Christian services on the Jewish model. Liberal scholars now regard the Gospels as "faith documents" and not accurate historical accounts.

- Earl Doherty, The Jesus Puzzle

Michael A. Turton's Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark, does a wonderful job of demonstrating that "Mark" is 'Midrash' and therefore not history.

His site was formerly located here:

http://users2.ev1.net/%7Eturton/GMark/GMark_index.html

I believe it was taken down so that he could present the work as a published book. The site can still be found here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060427175532/users2.ev1.net/~turton/GMark/GMark_index.html)

Michael Turton writes:

If Mark is history, where are the reliable methods for uncovering it? If Mark knew real traditions, why would be bother to parallel some other story every time Jesus does something major? It's not like this is a sometime thing. Almost every story in Mark draws on the OT, and Mark often tells you where he got it from one way or another (and if he doesn't, that fussbudget Matthew certainly will). The few stories that are not OT in origin have a narrative function, and of course, are so totally bound up with the supernatural that they are certainly fiction -- sometimes both (as in the Gerasene Demoniac, for example, though that has OT echoes too).

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=d239f8ccf586656ab7cdeadddb5bb815&t=132440&page=2

Note: Turton's work also serves a secondary role: it serves to invalidate any argument that Gospel 'prophecies' are supportive of the Gospel's divine origin. It shows that such a claim is based on backwards logic: The Mark author isn't capturing a series of events that 'fulfills a prophecy, he's writing a story built upon Old Testament passages! Seeing as this provides us with a more parsimonious explanation for the purported prophecies of the Old Testament, the claim for Midrash follows the basic rules of valid historiography, whereas 'prophecy claims' violate them.

*************************************************

Because the later Gospels all clearly rely on Mark to some degree (Matthew and Luke are even considered "synoptic', 'similar eyed'/same view,) demonstrating that 'Mark' is a work of fiction unseats the validity of all the supposed "Gospel' accounts. Yet we need not rely on this 'cascade' problem alone. An examination of the other "Gospels' reveals that each "Gospel' claim falls short of "Gospel Truth".

Robert Price's deconstruction of the gospels helps to invalidate the concept of a 'historical jesus'.

THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING SON OF MAN
How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition?
by Robert M. Price, Prometheus Books, 2003

http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/BkrvSonofMan.htm

Price is one of the sources that Turton draws upon. This review of his work demonstrates just how poor the case is for a 'historical jesus'.

From the site:

" It is clear from this that a concern for historical accuracy played no part in the creation of the Gospels. The principle of eyewitness, perhaps even of representing history at all, was simply not operating. This is a chain of original storytelling, not a reproduction or editing of earlier tradition. Literary criticism reveals Mark as writing most of his Gospel out of his own imagination (drawing mostly on scriptural elements), while his redactors are recasting his efforts for their own purposes, with no concerns about compromising or falsifying historical truth or accuracy. That there was vast fabrication by all involved throughout the Christian documentary record has long been undeniable, and there is no reason to make any distinction in reliability between canonical and non-canonical writings."

Richard Carrier is another source that Michael Turton relies upon. Carrier's work goes far to weaken the claim for an historical jesus:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html

This work helps demonstrate how much Luke relied on Josephus.

From the page:

Luke and Josephus (2000)
Richard Carrier

There has long been the observation that Luke-Acts contains numerous parallels with the works of Josephus, generating three different theories to account for this: that Josephus used Luke, that Luke used Josephus, or that they both used some common but now lost source. Steve Mason has reviewed the arguments [1] and in summarizing the evidence concludes that, besides generic parallels of genre and form and the use of identical historical events, which are inconclusive as proofs, the "coincidence ... of aim, themes, and vocabulary ... seems to suggest that Luke-Acts is building its case on the foundation of Josephus' defense of Judaism," and therefore that Luke is consciously and significantly drawing on Josephus to supplement his use of Mark and Q and to create the appearance of a real history, a notable deviation from all the other Gospels which have none of the features of a historical work.

Carrier's work can be found here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/

Finally, one ought to consider looking at the works of Josephus himself:

http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/JOSEPHUS.HTM

Josephus writes a history of the Jewish people.. one would expect that if he really had information about jesus, that jesus would dominate his telling of their history. Yet while we do hear glowing reports of John the Baptist, nothing in the works of Josephus speak of any Jesus, the Christ.

More on Micahel Turton
(Vorkosigan)

Turton writes:

First, we'll see how much of Mark is based on the OT. The "OT Frame" represents a significant event parallel between the OT and Mark, "(OT parallels)" represents a signficant number of verses with parallels in the OT.

Pericope...OT Frame (verse origin)

1:1-8..........NONE KNOWN (OT parallels)
1:9-11........(OT Parallels)
1:12-13......1 Kings 19, The Fall
1:14-20......1 Kings 19:19-21 (Galilee Isa (9:1)
1:21-28......(many OT/Jewish lit echoes)
1:29-39......NONE KNOWN
1:40-45......2 Kings 5, Nm 5:1-2
2:1-12........2 Kings 1:2-17
2:13-17......1 Kings 19:19-21
2:18-22......CHREIA SAYING
2:23-28......(v25=2 Sam 15-16)
3:1-6..........1 Kings 13:4-6
3:7-12........Invention
3:13-19......Exodus 18:2-26
3:20-30......(Zech 3:13), Exodus 18:2-26
3:31-35......CHREIA SAYING, Exodus 18:2-26
4:1-20........(many to OT/Hellenistic culture)
4:21-25......SAYING (OT/Jewish parallels)
4:26-29......SAYING (OT parallels)
4:30-34......SAYING (OT parallels)
4:35-41......Jonah through Psalm 107
5:1-20........(Isa 65:1-7)
5:21-43.....2 Kings 4:8-37
6:1-6..........CHREIA SAYING
6:7-13........MISSION CHARGE (CYNIC)
6:14-29......Esther
6:30-44......2 Kings 4:38-44
6:45-56......(Psalm 77, Isa 43, Job 9)
7:1-23........(many OT, anachronism)
7:24-30......Elijah-Elisha echoes, CHREIA SAYING
7:31-37......Isa 35:5-6
8:1-13........2 Kings 4:38-44
8:14-21......Non-Markan
8:22-26......Interpolation based on 7:31-7
8:27-33......Invention (Peter's Confession)
8:34-38......Hellenistic Philosophical Concepts
9:1-13........2 Kings 1, other OT
9:14-29......NONE KNOWN
9:30-37......Invention (2nd passion prediction
9:38-41......Num 11:26-29
9:42-50......(Isa, Num, Lev)
10:1-12......OT, CHREIA (Paul on Divorce)
10:13-16....CHREIA
10:17-31[color=white]....[/colorCHREIA
10:32-34....Invention (3rd passion prediction)
10:35-45....Invention/anachronism (OT parallels)
10:46-52....Plato? NONE KNOWN
11:1-11......2 Kings 9:13, 1 Samuel 9 & 10 (OT parallels)
11:12-14....(Jeremiah 8, 29, Joel 1, Hosea 9)
11:15-19....2 Kings (OT parallels)
11:20-25....Invention -- 2nd fig tree
11:27-33....Baptism authority? SAYING
12:1-12......PARABLE, 2 Kings 9:22-10:27 (OT parallels)
12:13-17....CHREIA (Paul?)
12:18-27....CHREIA (OT/Jewish parallels, Paul?)
12:28-34....(OT/Jewish parallels, Paul?)
12:35-44....2 Kings 12:5-17
13:1-31......2 Kings 10:26-28, anachronisms, (OT parallels)
13:32-37....PARABLE
14:1-11......2 Kings 9:1-13 (OT parallels)
14:12-25....1 Samuel 10:1-7 (Paul?)
14:26-31....(OT parallels)
14:32-42....1 Kings 19:1-5 (Psalm 78:39-41)
14:43-52....2 Samuel 15-16
14:53-65....Invention (OT parallels)
14:66-72....NONE KNOWN (Peter's denial= invention)
15:1-15......Daniel 6 (Josephus War?)
15:16-20....(OT parallels, Roman procession)
15:21-32....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
15:33-41....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
15:42-47....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
16:1-8........Daniel 6, 2 Kgs 13: 20-1 (OT parallels)

Let's now group them:

DIRECT OT PARALLELING:

1:12-13......1 Kings 19, The Fall
1:14-20......1 Kings 19:19-21 (Galilee Isa (9:1)
1:40-45......2 Kings 5, Nm 5:1-2
2:1-12........2 Kings 1:2-17
2:13-17......1 Kings 19:19-21
3:1-6..........1 Kings 13:4-6
3:13-19......Exodus 18:2-26
3:20-30......(Zech 3:13), Exodus 18:2-26
3:31-35......CHREIA SAYING, Exodus 18:2-26
4:35-41......Jonah through Psalm 107
5:21-43.....2 Kings 4:8-37, Num 5:1-2
6:14-29......Esther
6:30-44......2 Kings 4:38-44
6:45-56......(Psalm 77, Isa 43, Job 9)
7:31-37......Isa 35:5-6
8:1-13........2 Kings 4:38-44
9:1-13........2 Kings 1, other OT
9:38-41......Num 11:26-29
11:1-11......2 Kings 9:13, 1 Samuel 9 & 10 (OT parallels)
11:12-14....(OT: Jeremiah 8, 29, Joel 1, Hosea 9)
11:15-19....2 Kings (OT parallels)
12:1-12......PARABLE, 2 Kings 9:22-10:27 (OT parallels)
12:35-44....2 Kings 12:5-17
13:1-31......2 Kings 10:26-28, anachronisms, (OT parallels)
14:1-11......2 Kings 9:1-13 (OT parallels)
14:12-25....1 Samuel 10:1-7 (Paul?)
14:32-42....1 Kings 19:1-5 (Psalm 78:39-41)
14:43-52....2 Samuel 15-16
15:1-15......Daniel 6 (Josephus War?)
15:21-32....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
15:33-41....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
15:42-47....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
16:1-8........Daniel 6, 2 Kgs 13: 20-1 (OT parallels)
------------------
DIRECT PARALLELS 33/71

OT VERSE CONSTRUCTION (built out of individual Verses)

1:9-11........(OT Parallels)
1:21-28......(many OT echoes) also 1 Enoch, Tobit
9:42-50......(Isa, Num, Lev)
12:28-34....(OT/Jewish parallels, Paul?)
14:26-31....(OT parallels)
15:16-20....(OT parallels, Roman procession)
14:53-65....Invention (OT parallels)
6:7-13........MISSION CHARGE (CYNIC) (OT parallels)
4:1-20........PARABLE (many to OT/Hellenistic culture)
4:21-25......SAYING (OT/Jewish parallels)
4:26-29......SAYING (OT parallels)
4:30-34......SAYING (OT parallels)
------------------
plus 12 = 45/71 or 63.3%

CHREIA

2:18-22......CHREIA SAYING
2:23-28......CHREIA (OT parallels)
6:1-6..........CHREIA SAYING
7:24-30......Elijah-Elisha echoes, CHREIA SAYING
10:1-12......OT, CHREIA (Paul on Divorce)
10:13-16....CHREIA
10:17-31....CHREIA
12:13-17....CHREIA (Paul?)
12:18-27....CHREIA (OT/Jewish parallels, Paul?)
-------------------

9/71

OUTRIGHT INVENTION

3:7-12........Invention
7:1-23........(many OT, anachronism)
8:27-33......Invention (Peter's Confession)
9:30-37......Invention (2nd passion prediction
10:32-34....Invention (3rd passion prediction)
10:35-45....Invention/anachronism (OT parallels)
11:20-25....Invention -- 2nd fig tree
13:32-37....PARABLE
14:66-72....NONE KNOWN (Peter's denial= invention)
----------------
8/71

UNKNOWN or SOURCE NOT OT

9:14-29......NONE KNOWN
10:46-52....Plato? NONE KNOWN
5:1-20........Josephus? (OT Parallels=Isa 65:1-7)
8:34-38......Hellenistic Philosophical Concepts
8:22-26......Interpolation based on 7:31-7
8:14-21......NONE KNOWN Non-Markan
11:27-33....Baptism authority? SAYING
1:1-8..........NONE KNOWN (OT parallels)
1:29-39......NONE KNOWN

-------------------
9/71 = 13.8%

Well, about 65% of Markan pericopes are built off of the OT one way or another, sometimes by direct paralleling of events, sometimes by verse inspiration. The rest is either Chreia from the culture or hand of Mark, or obvious invention. Some things are difficult to classify, of course....

Mark is fiction. If there was really a community spurring Mark to write this, where are the traditions? There is nothing in Mark that does not go back to the OT, Paul, or something Hellenistic. Exegetes are found of arguing that Matthew cannot be a disciple, else why would have copied Mark? That is just as true of Mark: if he knew stories about the HJ, why did he bother to parallel the OT?

Vorkosigan

The original chatboard post site:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=122535

On chiasms or pericopes

http://www.textexcavation.com/turtonchiasms.html

The only one making gross errors here is you.

As for your assertion here, you again fail to recognize that you can't simply beg the question, you yourself have the burden of proof. 

However, here's your answer. I look forward to you disregarding what any atheist says, because they are atheists, as well as disregarding what any theist says, because they are theists.  This sort of naysaying seems to be all you're capable of producing in response to actual arguments.... anyway:

Frank Zindler writes:

"The notion that the four "gospels that made the cut" to be included in the official New Testament were written by men named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John does not go back to early Christian times. The titles "According to Matthew," etc., were not added until late in the second century. Thus, although Papias ca. 140 CE ('Common Era&#39 knows all the gospels but has only heard of Matthew and Mark, Justin Martyr (ca. 150 CE) knows of none of the four supposed authors. It is only in 180 CE, with Irenæus of Lyons, that we learn who wrote the four "canonical" gospels and discover that there are exactly four of them because there are four quarters of the earth and four universal winds:

But it is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the church has been scattered throughout the world, and since the "pillar and ground" of the church is the Gospel and the spirit of life, it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing incorruption on every side, and vivifying human afresh. From this fact, it is evident that the Logos, the fashioner demiourgos of all, he that sits on the cherubim and holds all things together, when he was manifested to humanity, gave us the gospel under four forms but bound together by one spirit. ”

—Against Heresies 3.11.8

Thus, unless one supposes the argument of Irenæus to be other than ridiculous, (couldn't a Christian come up with an equally ad hoc justication based on the number 1 (one god) 3 (the trinity) 10 (ten commandments) 12 (the disciples)?) we come to the conclusion that the gospels are of unknown origin and authorship, and there is no good reason to suppose they are eye-witness accounts of a man named Jesus of Nazareth. At a minimum, this forces us to examine the gospels to see if their contents are even compatible with the notion that they were written by eye-witnesses. We cannot even assume that each of the gospels had but one author or redactor.

- Did Jesus Exist? by Frank R. Zindler

The following is written by Rook Hawkins concerning the four Gospels.

MARK

John P. Meier provides an example in which the author of Mark shows himself to be dependent on oral tradition. The story of the feeding of the multitude is found twice in Mark and once in John. Meier writes (A Marginal Jew, v. 2, pp. 965-6):

"This suggests a long and complicated tradition history reaching back to the early days of the first Christian generation. Prior to Mark's Gospel there seems to have been two cycles of traditions about Jesus' ministry in Galilee, each one beginning with one version of the feeding miracle (Mk 6:32-44 and Mk 8:1-10). Before these cycles were created, the two versions of the feeding would have circulated as independent units, the first version attracting to itself the story of Jesus' walking on the water (a development also witnessed in John 6), while the second version did not receive such an elaboration. Behind all three versions of the miracle story would have stood some primitive form."

Randel Helms writes concerning Mark 11:1 (Who Wrote the Gospels?, p. 6):

"Anyone approaching Jerusalem from Jericho would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse. This is one of several passages showing that Mark knew little about Palestine; we must assume, Dennis Nineham argues, that 'Mark did not know the relative positions of these two villages on the Jericho road' (1963, 294-295). Indeed, Mark knew so little about the area that he described Jesus going from Tyrian territory 'by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the territory of the Ten Towns' (Mark 7:31); this is similar to saying that one goes from London to Paris by way of Edinburgh and Rome. The simplist solution, says Nineham, is that 'the evangelist was not directly acquainted with Palestine' (40)."

Concerning v. 9-13, Robert Funk writes in The Five Gospels:

"The sayings in Mark 13:9-13 all reflect detailed knowledge of events that took place - or ideas that were current - after Jesus' death: trials and persecutions of Jesus' followers, the call to preach the gospel to all nations, advice to offer spontaneous testimony, and the prediction that families would turn against one another are features of later Christian existence, not of events in Galilee or Jerusalem during Jesus' lifetime. The note about children betraying their parents may be an allusion to the terrible calamities that took place during the siege of Jerusalem (66-70 C.E.)"

Randel Helms comments on the reference to Daniel in the Gospel of Mark (op. cit., p. :

So Daniel's "time, times, and half a time" is three and a half years, or twelve hundred and ninety days. The author of Daniel was referring, with the "abomination of desolation," to the altar to Zeus that Antiochus IV established in the Jerusalem temple in December, 167 B.C.E., as I Maccabees 1:54 tells us. But in Mark's eyes, Daniel really was speaking of Mark's own time, the "time of the end," when another "abomination of desolation" was set up in the Jerusalem temple. For according to Josephus, the regular offering ceased in the temple in July, 70, the temple was burnt in August, and later that month the imperial Roman eagle was set up in the temple precincts and sacrifice was offered to it; then in September the temple was razed to the ground (Josphus, The Jewish War, Chapters 6, 7). Three and a half years thereafter would be early in the year 74. It should not be surprising that a first-century author might apply the Book of Daniel to the Jewish War; Josephus himself did so, he tells us, in the summer of the year 70, at the height of the seige (Josephus, 309)....As far as Mark was concerned the Jewish War was over; there remained only the cosmic disorder and the Second Coming.

Robert Eisenman writes (James the Brother of Jesus, p. 56):
"From the same internal textual considerations already noted, it is possible to show that Mark, too, was written after the fall of the Temple in 70 CE. The whole nature of its anti-Jewish polemic and opposition to the family and brothers of Jesus on the one hand and its pro-Peter orientation on the other distinguish it as having appeared after the destruction of the Jerusalem centre - in particular, after the attempt by the Roman Community to represent itself as the legitimate heir to Jesus and the Messianic movement he represented, however absurd, historically speaking, that might have seemed to any objective observer at the time."

MATTHEW

As one historian notes:

It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew. Such an idea is based on the second century statements of Papias and Irenaeus. As quoted by Eusebius in Hist. Eccl. 3.39, Papias states: "Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." In Adv. Haer. 3.1.1, Irenaeus says: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church." We know that Irenaeus had read Papias, and it is most likely that Irenaeus was guided by the statement he found there. That statement in Papias itself is considered to be unfounded because the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek and relied largely upon Mark, not the author's first-hand experience.

Herman N. Ridderbos writes (Matthew, p. 7):

This means, however, that we can no longer accept the traditional view of Matthew's authorship. At least two things forbid us to do so. First, the tradition maintains that Matthew authored an Aramaic writing, while the standpoint I have adopted does not allow us to regard our Greek text as a translation of an Aramaic original. Second, it is extremely doubtful that an eyewitness like the apostle Matthew would have made such extensive use of material as a comparison of the two Gospels indicates. Mark, after all, did not even belong to the circle of the apostles. Indeed Matthew's Gospel surpasses those of the other synoptic writers neither in vividness of presentation nor in detail, as we would expect in an eyewitness report, yet neither Mark nor Luke had been among those who had followed Jesus from the beginning of His public ministry.

J. C. Fenton argues (The Gospel of Saint Matthew, p. 12):

It is usually thought that Mark's Gospel was written about A.D. 65 and that the author of it was neither one of the apostles nor an eyewitness of the majority of the events recorded in his Gospel. Matthew was therefore dependent on the writing of such a man for the production of his book. What Matthew has done, in fact, is to produce a second and enlarged edition of Mark. Moreover, the changes which he makes in Mark's way of telling the story are not those corrections which an eyewitness might make in the account of one who was not an eyewitness. Thus, whereas in Mark's Gospel we may be only one remove from eyewitnesses, in Matthew's Gospel we are at one remove further still.

Francis Write Beare notes (The Gospel according to Matthew, p. 7):

But the dependence of the book upon documentary sources is so great as to forbid us to look upon it as the work of any immediate disciple of Jesus. Apart from that, there are clear indications that it is a product of the second or third Christian generation. The traditional name of Matthew is retained in modern discussion only for convenience.

J.C. Fenton summarizes the evidence for the dating of Matthew as follows (op. cit., p. 11):

The earliest surviving writings which quote this Gospel are probably the letters of Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch, who, while being taken as prisoner from the East to Rome about A.D. 110, wrote to various churches in Asia in Asia Minor and to the church at Rome. Ignatius refers to the star which appeared at the time of the birth of Jesus, the answer of Jesus to John the Baptist, when he was baptized, and several sayings of Jesus which are recorded only in this Gospel (12:33, 15:13, 19:12). It seems almost certain that Ignatius, and possibly the recipients of his letters also, knew this Gospel, and thus that it was written before A.D. 110. But how long before?

Here we cannot be so certain. But it is possible that we can find evidence that Matthew was writing after the war between the Romans and the Jews which ended in the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem in A.D. 70. See, for example, 22:7: The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city; and compare also 21:41, 27:25. Similarly, Matthew's Gospel contains a strongly anti-Jewish note running through it, from the teaching not to do as the hypocrites do in Chapter 6, to the Woes on the scribes and Pharisees in Chapter 23; and this may point to a date after c. A.D. 85 when the Christians were excluded from the Jewish synagogues. It is worth noting here that Matthew often speaks of their synagogues (4:23, 9:35, 10:17, 12:9, 13:54), as if to distinguish Christian meetings and meeting places from those of the Jews, from which the Christians had now been turned out.

Beare offers the following to date the Gospel of Matthew (op. cit., pp. 7-8):

It is generally agreed that it was written after the fall of Jerusalem to the armies of Titus (AD 70), and the widespread acquaintance with it which is exhibited in all the Christian literature of the second century makes it difficult to place its composition any later than the opening decade of that century. If the Sermon on the Mount can be regarded in any sense as 'the Christian answer to Jamnia. . . a kind of Christian mishnaic counterpart to the formulation taking place there' (Davies, Setting, p. 315), this would indicate a date a few years before or after the turn of the century.

Concerning the knowledge of the fall of Jerusalem that the author evinces, Schweizer writes concerning Matthew 22:7 (op. cit., p. 418):

The wrath of the host is mentioned by both evangelists, but it is impossible to conceive of the king coming with his army not only to slay those who had been invited but to burn down their city (not "cities&quot, and doing all this while the feast stands ready for the newly invited. The parable deals with ordinary citizens, who buy fields and use oxen, not with men who rule entire cities. After his punishment, furthermore, the verdict of the king in verse 8 is pointless. Verses 6-7 are thus clearly an interpolation in the narrative, which earlier passed directly from verse 5 to the wrath of the king (beginning of vs. 7), and then to verse 8. Here the events of A.D. 70 - the taking and burning of Jerusalem by Roman armies - have colored the language of the parable.

LUKE

F. F. Bruce writes on the occasion of Luke's writing (The Book of Acts, pp. 10-12):

It is necessary, then, to look for an appropriate life-setting for a work which strikes the apologetic note in just this way. One attractive suggestion points to the period A.D. 66 or shortly afterward, when the chief accusers of Paul, the Judean authorities, ahd so completely discredited themselves in Roman eyes by the revolt against imperial rule. True, Paul himself was dead by then, but the accusations against him, especially that of fomenting public disorder, continued to be brought against Christians in general, and his defense, which could have been seen as vindicated in the event, might be validly pleaded on their behalf. In those years it would have been quite effective to emphasize that, unlike the rebellious Jews, Christians were not disloyal to the empire--that, in fact, it was the rebellious Jews themselves who had always done their best to disown Christianity.

The argument that there is nothing in Acts--or even in Luke--that presupposes the Jewish revolt and the resultant destruction of the temple and city of Jerusalem (A. D. 70) has been used in defense of a pre-70 dating for the twofold work--early in the twentieth century by Adolf Harnack and over sixty years later by J. A. T. Robinson. Indeed, it has been further argued, since there is no allusion to two earlier events--the Neronian persecution and the execution of Paul--that the composition of Luke-Acts should probably be dated not later than A.D. 65. So far as the Neronian persecution is concerned, even Tacitus (no friend to Christians) admits that it was the action of one man's malignity rather than an expression of public policy, and the official reprobation of Nero's memory and actions at his death could have been held to cover his persecution of the Christians of Rome. So Luke's recording of favorable judgments which had been passed on Christianity by other Roman authorities might have been intended to suggest that Nero's anti-Christian activity was an irresponsible and criminal attack by that now excrated ruler on a movement whose innocence had been amply attested by many worthier representatives of Roman power.

Again, whether Paul's execution was or was not an incident in the Neronian persecution, the fact that it is not mentioned in Acts is not a decisive argument for the dating of the book: Luke's goal has been reached when he has brought Paul to Rome and left him preaching the gospel freely there. Certainly, Paul's arrival in Rome, his gospel witness there for two years, the legal procedure involved in the bearing of his appeal to Caesar, must have brought Christianity to the notice of classes in Roman society on which it had until then made no impression. The interest that was now aroused in it did not die out, but maintained itself and increased, until under Domitian (A.D. 81-96) it had penetrated the highest ranks of all. At any time in this period a work which gave an intelligible history of the rise and progress of Christianity, and at the same time gave a reasoned reply to popular calumnies against it, was sure of a reception amongst the intelligent reading public--or rather listening public--of Rome, of whom Theophilus was probably a representative. Its positive defense was best expressed in the words of Paul, the Roman citizen, whose appeal to Caesar was made not only on his own behalf but on behalf of the Christian community and its faith.

It is difficult to fix the date of composition of Acts more precisely than at some point within the Flavian period (A.D. 69-96), possibly about the middle of the period. The arguments by which Sir William Ramsay, late in the nineteenth century, concluded that it was composed about A.D. 80 are precarious, but nothing that has been discovered since then has pointed to a more probable dating. One consideration, admittedly subjective, is the perspective from which the work has been composed. The relations between Peter, Paul, and James of Jerusalem are presented in a way which would be more natural if all three of them had died and the author had been able to view their lasting achievements in a more satisfactory proportion than would have been so easily attained if they had still been alive. Certainly the impression he gives us of their relations is not the impression received from Paul's letters, and this is more intelligible if they had been dead for some years and their disagreements (in the eyes of a man like Luke, at any rate) no longer seemed as important as they would have done at the time.

Stevan Davies writes (Jesus the Healer, p. 174):
"Luke wrote at least sixty years after Pentecost and perhaps closer to a century after that event. Scholarship on the subject presently vacillates between a late first century and an early to mid-second century date for Luke's writings."

JOHN

Robert Kysar writes the following on the authorship of the Gospel of John (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 3, pp. 919-920):

The supposition that the author was one and the same with the beloved disciple is often advanced as a means of insuring that the evangelist did witness Jesus' ministry. Two other passages are advanced as evidence of the same - 19:35 and 21:24. But both falter under close scrutiny. 19:35 does not claim that the author was the one who witnessed the scene but only that the scene is related on the sound basis of eyewitness. 21:24 is part of the appendix of the gospel and should not be assumed to have come from the same hand as that responsible for the body of the gospel. Neither of these passages, therefore, persuades many Johannine scholars that the author claims eyewitness status.

Morton Enslin observes (Christian Beginnings, pp. 369-370):

That Papias’ source of information is simply an inference from Mark 10:35-40 or its parallel, Matt. 20:20-23, is possible. None the less, this Marcan passage itself affords solid ground. No reasonable interpretation of these words can deny the high probability that by the time these words were written [ca. 70 CE] both brothers had 'drunk the cup' that Jesus had drunk and had been 'baptized with the baptism' with which he had been baptized." Since the patristic tradition is unanimous in identifying the beloved disciple with John, at least this evidence discredits the patristic tradition concerning the authorship of the Gospel of John.

Kysar states concerning the dating of the Gospel of John:

"Those who relate the expulsion to a formal effort on the part of Judaism to purge itself of Christian believers link the composition of the gospel with a date soon after the Council of Jamnia, which is supposed to have promulgated such an action. Hence, these scholars would date John after 90. Those inclined to see the expulsion more in terms of an informal action on the part of a local synagogue are free to propose an earlier date." (p. 919)

 Little, as far as we know, Jesus never told anyone to write anything. He came to found his Church (Matt.16), and that was before the NT was written. Even if we had no NT, the Church would still survive because it existed before the NT, it is protected by God, and is based on apostolic tradition. There are two forms of revelation and theology in Christianity: oral tradition and written tradition. Written tradition (NT) is not the sum total of the revelation of God. It is only part of it. There is also an oral tradition that was never written but is contained within the Church. Paul speaks about this in such passages as 2 Thess.2, etc.

 Tod, your arguments are based on old liberal arguments that have already been refuted by contemporary scholars. The Gospel is history. Mark is history. This link refutes all of your claims. There are several articles here.

http://www.christiancadre.org/topics/dating_nt.html

 Christ Myth no! Thayer's does not disagree with that I stated. When speaking on human resurrection, Thayer's and all Greek lexicons affirm the fact that resurrection always refers to the body of a dead person. This belief comes from Jewish thought and is rooted in the Old Testament. And I challenge you to show me any lexicon refuting this point. Your quote was word for word from Strong's Concordance and it also proved my point, becuase this is what the sources say.

I do not assume there is proof that the apostles wrote nothing while Jesus was alive. Such proof manifestly cannot exist, for the same reason that there is no proof that I am not a direct descendant of Hammurabi. As far as I know, I'm not related to him, but evidence of such a relation may yet be found ( improbable, but not impossible ) . Until and unless evidence is found that the apostles DID write about Jesus during his lifetime, I'll stick with the idea that they didn't.

I'm sure Julius Caesar isn't the only person of the time period with contemporary writers. I only cited him as an example of someone who does. As far as Jesus' contemporaries and the church he founded, no writings of the same written during his lifetime have been found, despite the fact that volumes of other writings from the same period of history have been found.

And I'm fairly certain Jesus wasn't the only person in history to start a church - Martin Luther, L. Ron Hubbard and Bobby Henderson have done so successfully.

Here I will admit I was wrong. 2 Th. 2 does mention oral tradition.

I'm fairly certain that the only oral traditions of the time ( in this context ) were the Jewish oral traditions. Somehow I have the feeling that the message of 2 Th. 2, indeed all of NT, isn't that we should be Jewish.

Judging by your screen name, your repeated capitalization of "Church," and the disdain you display towards Protestantism above, I'm guessing you're either Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox ( correct me if I'm wrong ).

I'll refrain from making an all-too-easy joke about Catholic priests and "oral tradition."

I won't argue your point that the Church produced NT. I agree. They chose which books to include in NT and which to exclude from NT (all of which were written after Jesus died, BTW ). They chose the ones which served their interests best, and rejected the others, including the gospel of Judas.

However, this does not solve the problem - that no contemporary writings were found describing Jesus, written during his lifetime. If such documents existed, they would likely have a physical description of what he looked like - for instance, height, hair color, etc. I don't think anyone living in that part of the world at that period of history would look anything like the Jesus of DaVinci's paintings.

Yes, I do. I've been coding since the 90s.

The pic is small because it's a link

  I listed my proof in my last post. Why would an eyewitness need to utilize outside sources to write an eyewitness account?  Furthermore, ARAMAIC was the spoken language of Jesus and his followers, not Koine Greek. If the disciples somehow learned to write from their peasant background, they would have learned Aramaic or possibly Hebrew, not Greek.

 Apatheon, I don't want to be mean, but I'm just demonstrating the conclusions found by 99% of biblical scholars. Although I am not a Christian, it makes Christians look anti-intellectual to reject gospel dates by claiming that they were written before 70 AD. If you want Christian writings between 40-60, look to Paul.

Precisely. And I believe that the early Chrisians understood this all precisely as you do. They weren't "lying" when they told these stories, in the same sense Stephen Hawkings isn't lying when he makes claims about the cosmos that cannot be confirmed. In both situations, people are specualing upon matters that they believe are true, using the best models available to themselves.

Mark used the best source available for understanding such phenomena: scripture. And just look at the level of writing of the Mark author: the man, whoever he was, was a very talented and intelligent person. This wasn't some liar or lunatic making up a story, this wasn't an ordinary writer like the Matthew author, pretending to write history, while both illustrating an abject ignorance of ancient historicity while basically bastardizing the beautiful writing of Mark; this was a very talented man who wrote in creative pericopes. Something well beyond the skill set of the matthew author.

My sense of what happened is this: When an abstract concept reaches the masses, two things generally happen: it either goes over their heads, or they concretitize it so that they can grasp it. I believe this happened with the spiritual concept of Jesus Christ.

I am glad to hear this. I would agree that it makes the writing of the Mark author appear even more profound. He's not just 'writing what he saw" he's using scripture to investigate what he considered to be an incredibly important aspect of human existence, our relationship to the divine. In a sense, I can't help but draw an analogy to cosmologists....

I think my statement may stand for the following reason: We can only speculate on is existence (although the reasoning is good), ergo, assuming that it does record anything about the Jesus of the gospels may not be a sound assumption: the 'Q" document may not even make references to a Jesus at all, it may well be a work of sayings of various cynics that were similar in nature to the statements a Jesus might make.

However, I do consider your response a very good counter point. I will amend my claim to note that the Q document may well be a second possible source.

Such a pleasure talking to a well reasoned theist. I have no problem conceding an issue in these cases.