Did the gospel writers Matthew, Mark, Luke and John meet Jesus?

I know the Jesus that we atheists know is most likely just a myth but I would like to find out if, and only if, Jesus did exist (the man, not the god that did miracles) would these gospel writers have actually met him? I saw a youtube video (not entirely sure which one it was) that was showing someone from the Islamic religion debunking the Christian religion. He said that none of them had ever met Jesus as they only wrote the gospel 40-80 years after Jesus' supposed death.

Can anyone verify this for me, it would be an interesting point to make when arguing with a christian.

Tags: Jesus, christianity, john, luke, mark, matthew

Views: 18125

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The short answer is no. None of the gospel writers ever met Christ. All scholars seem to agree on that. Where they disagree is who wrote them and when.
The 40 - 80 year time frame is most likely correct. Reputable New Testament scholars generally agree that Mark was written around 70 CE, Mathew & Luke in the 80's, and John in the 90's. They all underwent revision and may not have reached their present form until about 150 CE. None of the original authors had ever met Jesus (if he existed, which most scholars believe he did) since he died ca. 30 CE. A good book about the methods and conclusions of scholars searching for the historical Jesus is The Acts of Jesus edited by by Robert W. Funk and other members of the Jesus Seminar, published by Harper, San Francisco. If only Muslims were as critical of their own scriptures.
Congrats to Arnold for one of the first factually accurate posts in this thread.
First of all, Paul never wrote a single gospel (he did write several lettres though, many of which have been included in the New Testament).
Second of all, considering the Gospel of Mark was written around 72 AD, that puts the gospels only about 40 years after the death of Jesus, which is actually fairly good.

And as for the OP, I can see what you're trying to do but your point is moot: while it is certainly true that none of the gospel authors met Jesus (they were about 40-60 years too late) but like many ancient literature it is based on oral tradition. That doesn't necessarily make for a good argument against Christianity, because they will simply (on faith) maintain that the authors got hold of the correct oral tradition and wrote that version down. You're better off staying within the Gospels themselves and detailing, for example, how the teachings of a devout Jew like Jesus got distorted when his sect caught on among non-Jewish converts.

Daniel,

It follows that one can only accept the Gospels as historical evidence if one accepts the content of these books.

That doesn't follow at all though. Of course we can't say that because the gospels say something, it therefore must have happened; that would be a face-value reading of an ancient text and no serious historian would do that with any text ever. 

The gospels do, however, seem to record the beliefs of early Christians (70-95 CE), and in that sense they are historical documents. Historical documents that show a clear evolution in Christian thought, for instance, from a very Jewish preacher to a very pro-gentile half-God (and eventually: full God).

What the gospels do show is that early Christians believed in the existence of a flesh-and-blood preacher who had lived in Palestine a few decades earlier (within living memory). The historical Jesus theory accounts for this in a very straightforward way, the mythical Jesus ones cannot without engaging in a lot of supposition. That's why the mythical Jesus theory isn't taken very seriously: it chooses to reject a straightforward conclusion for rather patently obvious ideological reasons.

Dr. Richard Carrier has done excellent work in pointing out the lack of evidence for a historical Jesus, and he has great videos on youtube.

If we're going to recommend people, I would recommend the work of non-Christian scholars who actually produce peer-reviewed work, like Geza Vermes, Paula Frederiksen, Joseph Hoffman, Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey. There's no shortage of really qualified scholars who don't happen to have a strong bias.

When the christian view of our world was set, judged, and measured by the bible, the popular view was that all 4 of the gospel writers knew and had met Jesus, and they were writing it all in a narrative for us to read. Later, we find that some writers would use the name of one of the 4 (or others) to give authority to the writing. Once our scientists got into not using the bible as a starting point, and taking that book as a "given", we have come to see that the video of this Islamist just might be correct.

The modern view is that:

1. The gospel writers are not likely to be who they say they are.

2. The very existence of Jesus is questionable.

While this makes the Islamist coorect on the issue, it does not make Islam (or any other world religion) correct. A little study will show that there are no gods. Not even Allah. God is imaginary.

The gospel writers are not likely to be who they say they are.

Errrrr, most "scientists" (historical scholars) would find that statement quite bizarre.

It's a bit hard for the gospel writers to not be who "they say they are", when in fact nowhere in gospels do they actually say... who they are.

It is said nowhere in the gospels who has written them; the gospel of John comes closest in its final chapter, but even there it's clear that there are in fact other people actually writing the gospel. The gospels got their names (again, except John) by having an apostle atributed to them several decades after they were actually written.

So it's not true to say that the gospel writers aren't who they say they are: rather, the modern consensus is that the original attribution was baseless to begin with and that the gospels were anonymous.

Are we not saying the same thing, Matt? Facts are that in my part of the world people have assumed that the gospels were written by the ones whose name they carry. That was all I meant. Nothing more and nothing less.

It was more of a musing that when summarizing the modern view in two points, one of which is phrased poorly and the other of which is wrong, maybe you're not fully up to date on "the modern view" ;)

I've read a number of books on this topic. The consensus of scholarly opinion is:

1. The gospels were written by anonymous, literate, greek speaking, authors for the benefit of their particular religious communities. (All of the gospels were written in koinè greek which was the lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranian.)

2. The gospels writers lived long enough after the death of Jesus that it is unlikely they had access to any eyewitnesses.

3. Jesus was intending to reform Temple Judaism & not start a new religion.

4. The original followers of Jesus were wiped out when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 CE.

5. Paul of Tarsus states clearly that he never met the living Jesus.

6. Paul claims he met James, brother of Jesus & leader of the Jerusalem congregation, but repudiated James' teachings. Read: Epistle of James.

The list goes on but these are the main points.

Jesus was intending to reform Temple Judaism & not start a new religion.

This point has always struck me as significant and strangely ignored. I've never seen the slightest indication that Jesus ever wanted or intended a new religion to be started in his name. So if it wasn't done on his behalf, what was the real motivation and how valid can christianity possibly be?

Although not germane to the question, this chart of the relationship between the three synoptic gospels—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—is helpful. For a long time Matthew was considered to be the earliest gospel of the three, but scholars seems to have converged on Mark as the earliest. Mark contains no account of the birth of Christ or of the Sermon on the Mount. Part of the account of resurrection events is thought to have been added to Mark later.

The gospel of John is almost entirely separate in content from the synoptic gospels and considerably different in theology—it does not contain any account of the virgin birth, the baptism of Jesus, and does not contain the Lord's Prayer. It differs in the naming of disciples.

I like that chart!

There is also the interesting fact that NO outside contemporary sources exist for major events such as the trial and crucifiction, the sermon on the mount, or any of the "healing" miracles.

There were many literate Romans and Jews living, and writing detailed histories, in Palestine during those 30+ critical years, who don't mention Jesus/Joshua/Yeshua at all.  Not even a scrap of a note to the "folks back home."  Anyone joining Julius Caesar's Legions was either already literate or taught to read and write before they left winter camp.  I don't know whether Augustus and/or Tiberius kept that up or not, but the Romans were a chatty culture, and they did "write home."

There is NO mention of a massive earthquake powerful enough to open graves.....it would have had to have a seven-pointer at least, and would have leveled Jerusalem and nearby towns COMPLETELY. Somebody should have noticed.  I live in SoCal; and we bloody well felt the Loma Prieta quake near San Francisco.  We certainly felt the 1994 Northridge quake that cost us several large sections of concrete-and-steel freeway bridges in our distant back yard.  And so on.

NO mention of a solar eclipse taking place at that time....it would have been physically impossible if the "last supper" was a Seder.  Passover/Easter takes place during a full moon, and when the moon is full it's on the opposite side of the earth from the sun. Ergo no eclipse would have been possible.

Turning water into wine and walking on Lake Galilee are circus tricks to fool the marks.

And so on......

RSS

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service