The Tale Got Better With the Telling

[DeistPaladin]

Question: Anyone here ever read the NT books in the order in which they were written? When you do, you can see glimpses into how the myth was shaped over time.

The order in which the books of the NT are presented are as follows:

1. Matthew
   
2. Mark
   
3. Luke
   
4. John
   
5. Epistles
   
6. Revelation
   

I'm not counting Acts as this book details what happened after Jesus departed the earth. The "tale" I refer to is the life of Jesus itself. I include the Epistles since we get minor tidbits and Revelation since this offers us the very first views of Jesus by the early church.

The actual order of authorship is as follows:

1. Revelation
   
2. Epistles
   
3. Mark
   
4. Matthew and Luke
   
5. John
   

Read in proper order, we get a better glimpse of how the tale got better with the telling.

Revelation is the first book and this Jesus bears little in common with the meek and mild lamb of god. Here we see a Jesus more consistent with the ancient Jewish concept of a Messiah, a bloody (glorious) warlord who would bring ultimate victory to Israel. It reads like a bad acid trip, filled with bile and hatred for Israel's enemies.

At the time Revelation was penned, many Jews were chaffing under Roman rule and were wondering where the kingdom of the chosen people had gone. What happened to the promise of Yahweh to King David, who's line would rule on the throne forever? Some looked to the skies and decided their kingdom was in a higher place, a sentiment found in the book.

***More on this later***

[Drich]

The actual order of authorship is as follows:
1.Revelation
2.Epistles
3.Mark
4.Matthew and Luke
5.John

Uh, no.

http://www.lostkeysrevelation.com/DarbyN...nOrder.htm
http://www.errantskeptics.org/DatingNT-C...lOrder.htm
http://www.freebeginning.com/new_testame...index.html

[DeistPaladin]

The actual order of authorship is as follows:
1.Revelation
2.Epistles
3.Mark
4.Matthew and Luke
5.John

Uh, no.

http://www.lostkeysrevelation.com/DarbyN...nOrder.htm
http://www.errantskeptics.org/DatingNT-C...lOrder.htm
http://www.freebeginning.com/new_testame...index.html

Bullshit. This is fringy apologetics, never mind scholarship.

[Minimalist]

Mark has to precede Matty...so much of Matty was derived from that initial bullshit story.

Those "epistles" require strict scholarship. Most are forgeries and some may well have been re-cycled.

"John" of course is straight out of fantasy land and revelations is re-cycled jewish horseshit.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

...
The actual order of authorship is as follows:

1. Revelation
   
2. Epistles
   
3. Mark
   
4. Matthew and Luke
   
5. John
   

...

Can we have some citations please?

---

The actual order of authorship is as follows:
1.Revelation
2.Epistles
3.Mark
4.Matthew and Luke
5.John

Uh, no.

http://www.lostkeysrevelation.com/DarbyN...nOrder.htm
http://www.errantskeptics.org/DatingNT-C...lOrder.htm
http://www.freebeginning.com/new_testame...index.html

Ok, first site seems completely wacky and untrustworthy. Second site seems basically like an exercise in appeal to majority. Third site seems better than the first two, but its arguments are rather short and doesn't offer rebuttals to our counterarguments.

[Drich]

Ok, first site seems completely wacky and untrustworthy. Second site seems basically like an exercise in appeal to majority. Third site seems better than the first two, but its arguments are rather short and doesn't offer rebuttals to our counterarguments.

What counter arguments? I said so? Until we have something a little more substantial 'we' can't even have an arguement.
Can we have some citations please?

Someone has made some assertion, now it is time to prove it.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Ok, first site seems completely wacky and untrustworthy. Second site seems basically like an exercise in appeal to majority. Third site seems better than the first two, but its arguments are rather short and doesn't offer rebuttals to our counterarguments.

What counter arguments? I said so? Until we have something a little more substantial 'we' can't even have an arguement.
Can we have some citations please?

Someone has made some assertion, now it is time to prove it.

I wasn't thinking of any counterarguments stated here. None have been made so far. Only assertions. But I have heard arguments against many of the very early dates given on those sites you linked. I'm too new to this matter however to properly argue them here but another friendly atheist will probably provide them in this thread (hopefully with some actual arguments and citations!)

[Drich]

What counter arguments? I said so? Until we have something a little more substantial 'we' can't even have an arguement.
Can we have some citations please?

Someone has made some assertion, now it is time to prove it.

I wasn't thinking of any counterarguments stated here. None have been made so far. Only assertions. But I have heard arguments against many of the very early dates given on those sites you linked. I'm too new to this matter however to properly argue them here but another friendly atheist will probably provide them in this thread (hopefully with some actual arguments and citations!)

Then, "Make is So."

[Minimalist]

I said so?

How come that is pretty much all you ever have? Or, you trot out some other nutjob to "say so."

If you have tangible evidence, now is the time to present it.

[DeistPaladin]

Then, "Make is So."

Everyone take out your Bibles and turn to Mark chapter 13.

Mark 13:1-2 And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!
And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

This is a reference to, at the earliest, the Jewish uprising and sacking of Jerusalem in 70 CE. At the latest, the Bar Kochbar revolt of the 2nd century. Since 70 CE is the earlier date, conventional apologists use this as the date of publication for the Gospel of Mark. Fringy apologetics tries to push the date even earlier but must account for the "little apocalypse" in Mark 13.

To cite Robert Price, "The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man" p32

No one denies that Mark 13 …has the immediate destruction of Jerusalem in its sights, so apologists admit Mark must have been written in the general neighborhood of 70 CE.

Most apologists do, at least. Skeptics claim the apocalypse is a reference to the Bar Kochbar revolt and places the date of publication c 130.

Can I continue with my analysis of the order of the NT books and what they indicate?