Was "Who Wrote The Gospels?"
James
>Re: Who Wrote The Gospels?
>Who Wrote The Gospels?
>
>Though it is evidently not the sort of thing pastors normally tell
>their congregations, for over a century there has been a broad
>consensus among scholars that many of the books of the New Testament
>were not written by the people whose names are attached to them. So if
>that is the case, who did write them?
>
>Preliminary Observations: The Gospels as Eyewitness Accounts
>
>As we have just seen, the Gospels are filled with discrepancies large
>and small. Why are there so many differences among the four Gospels?
>These books are called Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John because they were
>traditionally thought to have been written by Matthew, a disciple who
>was a tax collector; John, the "Beloved Disciple" mentioned in the
>Fourth Gospel; Mark, the secretary of the disciple Peter; and Luke,
>the traveling companion of Paul. These traditions can be traced back
>to about a century after the books were written.
>
>But if Matthew and John were both written by earthly disciples of
>Jesus, why are they so very different, on all sorts of levels? Why do
>they contain so many contradictions? Why do they have such
>fundamentally different views of who Jesus was? In Matthew, Jesus
>comes into being when he is conceived, or born, of a virgin; in John,
>Jesus is the incarnate Word of God who was with God in the beginning
>and through whom the universe was made. In Matthew, there is not a
>word about Jesus being God; in John, that's precisely who he is.
Hello,
Actually, the so-called contradictions in the gospels usually fade
away when you study the Bible more closely. For instance your comment
about the Bible book of John saying Jesus was God. That really is not
what it says, even though some Bible translations show it that way. So
that is where the error lies.
The likely passage you are talking about is John 1:1. In Greek, that
passage contains the word "god" [theos] twice, and the context is
talking about God and the Word (Jesus). [not some kinds of false gods]
The first one has the definite article "the" before it, the second one
does not. Thus there is a difference between the meaning of the first
"god" [theos] and the second "god" [theos]. And a good translation
should show that difference.
According to the Bible translator William Barclay, he says that when a
Greek noun doesn't have the definite article in front of it, it
becomes a description (like an adjective) rather than an identity
(like a noun). And the second "theos" [god] has no definite article
preceding it.
In English, it is like these similar two statements:
He is Michael Jackson.
He is the Michael Jackson.
Does the addition of the definite article "the" change the meaning a
little? It is a similar thing with the Greek grammar found at John
1:1.
The Catholic Bible, New American Bible (NAB), says in a footnote on
John 1:1,
"Was God:lack of a definite article with "God" in Greek signifies
predication rather than identification".
And the apostle John near the end of his book at John 20:31, mentions
the final concluding comment about Jesus' position as to God. He said
that Jesus was the "Son of God", not 'God the Son', nor 'God'.
Thus to ACCURATELY get across what the writer of Joh 1:1 was saying,
is to show that the "Word" [Jesus] was with Almighty God in the
beginning, and that the "Word" was also like a god, or godlike.
That is how the Greek manuscripts read, and that is how an honest and
accurate translator, should translate it for his readers.
Sincerely, James
If you wish to have a discussion with me, please use email since I do
not follow all conversations in ng threads
***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses Questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************