What Did Jesus Write?

My World Book Encyclopedia and an article on the Gospels in wikipedia date the first Gospel,Mark,being written around 70 A.D and not 41 A.D.

 

John Armstrong says this, in his video: “Even the gospels were written after Jesus died and quite arguably well after Jesus died.” Seeming to imply that they were written maybe hundreds of years later and by people that were not eyewitnesses of the times.

But truth is Matthew was written in 41 CE less than 10 Years after Jesus died.

Luke was written between 56-58 CE, only 25 years after Jesus death.

Mark was written between 60-65 CE some 32 years after Jesus death.

Even John written in 98 CE, 65 years after Jesus death was still written within the lifetime of those that could have been eyewitnesses of Jesus life and times.

It seems John Armstrong has an agenda and it’s not necessarily the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

 

Matthew wrote his account in Palestine. The exact year is not known, but subscriptions at the end of some manuscripts (all later than the tenth century C.E.) say that it was 41 C.E.

But regardless of the exact date of writing they were all written by men who lived at the time of Jesus and would have had to been written within 70 or eighty years of his death, when other eyewitnesses were still alive and could have confirmed or denied what was written.

 

^
This backs up the info in my World Book Encyclopedia.

 

And so?

 

^
It's just that the Gospels aren't examples of contemporary references to Jesus since they were written years after the crucifixtion by people who may have never actually met Jesus.

Also it is believed that the actual authors of the Gospels aren't actually known and like another poster pointed out tradition attributes them to Matthew,John,Mark and Luke.

 

What do mean by contemporary? What do you expect in the first century? Eye Wittness News with worldwide press coverage?

Even if I were to agree with you that they were written by someone else they were still written at a time that people who could have known Jesus were still alive and could confirm or deny what was written.

Believed by who? People who lived when they were written or people who lived 1800 years later? Again people of the time didn't question who wrote them. Those questions started being asked hundreds of years later.

 

^
Here are some scholars talking about the Gospels.

 

Just because someone is called a scholar doesn't mean that they have the slightest idea what they are talking about.

 

Those Roman writers were mainly reporting about the phenomenon of Christianity, which was well underway when they wrote. They were probably just reporting what they learned from Christians and saw no reason to doubt--that the movement had a leader or founder. The Roman sources don't convince me. But Paul was in touch with James, the brother of Jesus, and Peter, the head disciple, and others who claimed to know Jesus very well first hand and were accepted as such by the Christian community which included contemporaries of Jesus. Given the idea that the Messiah would be some powerful military leader and king, it seems unlikely to me they'd make up a hero who was an itinerant peasant preacher and was crucified like a common criminal. I don't hear people questioning the historical existence of the Buddha, but I don't think there's more or as much evidence about his existence as there is for Jesus.
[/quote]

 

Most scholars that I've read consider Mark to be the first gospel, written in 65-70 CE(Crossan,Ehrman,Goodacre,Insigneri, Kloppenbborg, Roskam). Matthew came later and Luke later still. There is a recent book (James Crossley, The Date of Mark's Gospel) defending a much earlier date for Mark--late 30s or early 40s.

 

I don't believe I said anything about the letters of Paul or the book of Acts and when they were written.

My comments directed toward Armstrong's comment that the Gospels were written well after the death of Jesus and that they were not contemporary with the life of Jesus. I was just mentioning that most people believe that they were written at a time that eyewitnesses could have abounded and would have raised a stink if Jesus was fictional, especially his opposers.

 

Not only do I totally agree with you, OWB, but I fail to understand why Everything you have posted on this seems so terribly difficult to comprehend. Not only is it really easily understandable, it Makes Common Sense...
as does the fact that Armstrong has an agenda, the truth not being part of it (imho).

 

On the topic of gospel dates, I've heard of Acts being ated as late as AD 150. It doesn't seem to exist before that really.

 

Interesting link.

Calvin Institute of Christian Worship - Kenneth E. Bailey on Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes

 

Thanx, it was an interesting link.

 

Although Acts is not usally considered one of the gospels, I've read that the date for Acts was about 61 CE. In any case, since Luke and Acts were both addressed to the same person they were probably written about the same time.