First of all Minimalist, thank you for your response. It certainly appears you did your homework, you have lots of good data, but I do have a few points to raise:
I'm afraid the reasons for this aren't obvious to me. Your use of the term "Jews" is a bit too ubiquitous. The Gospels portray tension between Jesus and certain Jewish factions that were active in Jerusalem, such as the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The Gospels themselves don't have any problem whatsoever with "Jews" so I'm not sure what it is you're talking about.
As for your earlier remarks about the Gospels, there are actually earlier references to the authorship of the Gospels than 180 AD. As for your assertion that, "There is no attempt to even suggest that the authors were either part of jesus' traveling road show or that they spoke to anyone who was," that is precisely what Luke claims in his introduction. He is claiming that these people were eyewitnesses and that he had researched the matter himself. As for the "street cred" theory, it was a common practice to use a famous person's name, but there are also books which were written by there actual authors. If the Gospels were trying to get "street cred" they would have included the famous name at the top of the letter, and made it plain that they were the author. Since they didn't, one could see that as them being humble, or that they were known to the community they were writing to, so they didn't feel the need to title the work (as one might assume as a key figure in the church). The Gospels were written anonymously, so it's going to be a debate, but the point I was trying to make is that the traditional view of authorship is still a valid theory.
(November 6, 2010 at 3:03 am)Minimalist Wrote: The gospel writers...whoever they may have been....tried to get Pilate off the hook by blaming the Jews.
The reasons for this are obvious.
I'm afraid the reasons for this aren't obvious to me. Your use of the term "Jews" is a bit too ubiquitous. The Gospels portray tension between Jesus and certain Jewish factions that were active in Jerusalem, such as the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The Gospels themselves don't have any problem whatsoever with "Jews" so I'm not sure what it is you're talking about.
As for your earlier remarks about the Gospels, there are actually earlier references to the authorship of the Gospels than 180 AD. As for your assertion that, "There is no attempt to even suggest that the authors were either part of jesus' traveling road show or that they spoke to anyone who was," that is precisely what Luke claims in his introduction. He is claiming that these people were eyewitnesses and that he had researched the matter himself. As for the "street cred" theory, it was a common practice to use a famous person's name, but there are also books which were written by there actual authors. If the Gospels were trying to get "street cred" they would have included the famous name at the top of the letter, and made it plain that they were the author. Since they didn't, one could see that as them being humble, or that they were known to the community they were writing to, so they didn't feel the need to title the work (as one might assume as a key figure in the church). The Gospels were written anonymously, so it's going to be a debate, but the point I was trying to make is that the traditional view of authorship is still a valid theory.
