Got into a discussion with a guy at work. My understanding was that the new testament was written long after Jesus was dead and that it was NOT written directly by any of the disciples?
The earliest copies we have are dated in the first century, but those are the copies. The originals were penned not long after Jesus death. Their authorships are challenged with varying degrees of success, but it would seem to me that your original bias tends to determine where you wind up on the issue. But there is plenty of evidence to back up the authorships of the new testement. And the disciples are included in them.
Ofcourse I am completely unbiased and everything I say is total truth.
Most scholars believe that the NT was all written before 70AD. The reason for this is that none of them mention the destruction of the temple which occured in 70AD. The gospels have Jesus predicting this to happen-so surely if it did happen before the books were written they would have mentioned it as a prophecy fulfiled. Even the great historian Luke doesnt mention it.
Another interesting thing is that it is believed Paul was martyred in the early sixties. Acts leaves off with Paul still alive but imprisoned in Rome. Thus it is speculated by some that Luke and Acts were thus written before 62AD and it is common knowledge that the other gospel writers had the gospel of Mark at their disposal when they wrote which would put Mark even earlier!
NT then was written by eyewitnesses Peter, James, Paul, and friends of eyewitnesses such as Luke, Mark, and John Mark.
Paul wasn't really an eyewitness, and you didn't mention John or Matthew as eyewitnesses.
It's an interesting topic.
I have read a fair amount about it. It's interesting in that science (often considered a bane of religion) has actually helped in this case. During the mid-late 1800s many researchers announced that the gospels were written around 200 years after christ died and, for a while at least, that was taken as a given by skeptics and scholars. But the gap between Jesus' death and the writing of the gospels has narrowed ever since. Many scholars now say the earliest two gospels (Mark and Mathew) were very likely written in the 50s-- about 20 years after the death of christ. The latest gospel, John, is dated anywhere between the 70s and 90s. The latest research indicates (still a controversial theory) that the gospels we know were based on a "sayings gospel"-- just the parables and sayings of Jesus, without the stories of miracles and works, that we do not have. That would have been written just after his death or perhaps while he was alive.
REV-Paul is considered an eyewitness and apostle because he saw the risen Lord on Damascus road. Yes your right I did leave out Matthew and John.
Even if the skeptics baseless theories of 200 years later was true it would still be very strong for lit written in that era. Take for ex. the 2 biographies of Alexander the Great were writtten 300-500 years after his death. Yet we generally trust them to be accurate.
well then is Oral Roberts an eye witness? He says he saw Jesus in his bedroom?
I take eyewitnss to mean they saw Jesus live, die, and resurrect.
Take for ex. the 2 biographies of Alexander the Great were writtten 300-500 years after his death. Yet we generally trust them to be accurate.
That's a common misconception. In the field of ancient history we constantly question the accuracy of the source material – especially given Arrian's rather weak defence of his sources ("Kings don't lie!").
REV- you seriously comparing the general trustworthiness of Paul to Oral Roberts? Paul did write most of the NT you know. Also- Paul calls himself an "eyewitness" several times and the requirement for apostleship was that one had "seen the risen Lord"-I can post the references if youd like. And the fact that the other apostles believed him also would seperate him from Oral Roberts or you or me.
"I take eyewitnss to mean they saw Jesus live, die, and resurrect." (REV)
Well then you can only count John because he is the only disciple to see Jesus die. The rest were in hiding fearing for their life. The only other disciple confirmed to be in Jerusalen when he died was Peter.
I was under the impression that the gospels were all written within 100 years of Crucifixation but many of Paul's texts were written latter.
I see Pauls experience as absolutely true. I do not consider him an eyewitness, but that doesn' take away credibility to me at all. And I do not consider Oral as a worthy comparison with Paul.
And ofcourse by death I meant the overall death sentencing and stuff.
If you want to include Paul, that is fine with me. I spoke to a friend and he said he would include Paul as well. Doesn't really matter, I just thought it sounded weird to me.
By the way some scholars believe Luke and Acts were written by Luke to be a legal document prepared for Pauls defense in Rome
"By the way some scholars believe Luke and Acts were written by Luke to be a legal document prepared for Pauls defense in Rome "
thats pretty cool I have never heard that but it is an interesting thought.