Embellishments in the Gospel of Mark.

[Succubus]

[Jehanne]

Again how much time? the exact time was not know but enough time to have Christ being born under quintius rather than herod.

do you get it now?

I don't think that is what the author of Luke intended to convey, namely, that Jesus was born in 6 AD.  In fact, such an interpretation would contradict what was written in Matthew about the massacre of the so-called "innocents", which was supposedly initiated by Herod, who died in 4 BC.

[Fake Messiah]

[Amarok]

[Godscreated]

They may have "gathered" nothing other than each others works and whatever common anecdotes were popular at the time.  The q hypothesis states, effectively, that there was a group of cynic philosophers, and this movement can be traced back to 500bc at least...and that notions common to this movement formed the basis of whatever various authors attributed to whatever or whomever the gospel authors may have -assumed- to be historical..or just straight up made up.

I think that you might really want to curb the use of phrases like "no doubt exists" and..if the aim is to identify how we might -establish- a historical jesus, try to move beyond the point of assuming one as part of that process.  Those two items lead directly to the failure of historians to identify a historical jesus in the first place, or even be able to agree on who it is they're trying to identify.

---

Hell, at some point, you may even want to consider whether the question is fundamentally malformed.  When we discuss these things, are we actually working around the history of some man or the history of a story?

The question "how do historians expect to establish the authentic character of the person" may actually be "how do historians attempt to establish the authentic motivations of the authors".

I am convinced that the historical Jesus was a real individual, which, as I have stated before, was born in northern Galilee.  The son of a carpenter, Jesus likely suffered from some mental illness, turning in his 20s into a Jewish apocalyptic prophet, who preached that the "Son of Man" (an angel from Heaven) would soon come to destroy the Roman control over Palestine.  Encouraged by his followers, he took his message to Jerusalem, and shortly arriving, went into the Temple to preach his message.  An altercation ensued and the Romans were on the scene almost immediately, and after arresting Jesus, they threw him into the Roman jail ("tank").  After a brief examination by a Roman proconsul, the local Jewish authorities (not Herod) were consulted (the Romans were federalists.)  The proconsul summarily found Jesus guilty of sedition against the Empire, and Pilate signed the order for Jesus' execution without the two ever meeting in person.  Jesus was executed by crucifixion the next day (Friday), and after his death, his body was removed from his cross, thrown into a nearby pit where it was consumed by ravenous dogs and birds of prey.

Interesting, and you get your facts from where. By the way Matthew was a eyewitness, he was one of the twelve disciples. We know he wrote his gospel before the late 60's.

GC

[Fake Messiah]

Interesting, and you get your facts from where. By the way Matthew was a eyewitness, he was one of the twelve disciples. We know he wrote his gospel before the late 60's.

GC

GC you've been lied to!!! Your whole life has been a lie. Matthew didn't write "Matthew". How could have actual Matthew been writer of "Matthew" when gospels paint the twelve disciples largely as simple, illiterate, Aramaic-speaking fishermen and commoners and yet gospel of Matthew, along with all gospels, was written in Greek language by Greek-speaking theologians, familiar with both pagan classics and Jewish scriptures?

[Jehanne]

Interesting, and you get your facts from where. By the way Matthew was a eyewitness, he was one of the twelve disciples. We know he wrote his gospel before the late 60's.

GC

GC you've been lied to!!! Your whole life has been a lie. Matthew didn't write "Matthew". How could have actual Matthew been writer of "Matthew" when gospels paint the twelve disciples largely as simple, illiterate, Aramaic-speaking fishermen and commoners and yet gospel of Matthew, along with all gospels, was written in Greek language by Greek-speaking theologians, familiar with both pagan classics and Jewish scriptures?

Indeed, the author of Matthew nowhere even claims to be "Matthew"; in fact, the "Gospel according to Matthew" did not appear until the second century.

[Godscreated]

Interesting, and you get your facts from where. By the way Matthew was a eyewitness, he was one of the twelve disciples. We know he wrote his gospel before the late 60's.

GC

GC you've been lied to!!! Your whole life has been a lie. Matthew didn't write "Matthew". How could have actual Matthew been writer of "Matthew" when gospels paint the twelve disciples largely as simple, illiterate, Aramaic-speaking fishermen and commoners and yet gospel of Matthew, along with all gospels, was written in Greek language by Greek-speaking theologians, familiar with both pagan classics and Jewish scriptures?

Showing your ignorance again I see. Matthew was an educated man, he was a former tax collector, you should read before making yourself look sooooo dumb. The reason we have them in Greek is because they are copies, understand, most likely not. Greek was a language spoken by many in the Middle East at that time, just as English is spoken around the world.

GC

---

Indeed, the author of Matthew nowhere even claims to be "Matthew"; in fact, the "Gospel according to Matthew" did not appear until the second century.

 Why should he need to make that claim it wasn't important to them that they were acknowledged. It was the word of God that was important. The Gospel of Matthew was written before the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple. Matthew's Gospel was heavy on prophecy it is an important part of the Gospel, so if the Gospel was written after the fall of Jerusalem and the foretelling of the temples destruction it would have been mentioned in Matthew's Gospel. As for the Gospel of Matthew appearing in the second century those are copies and by simple logic the original had to be written before the copies, makes utter sense doesn't it.

GC

[The Grand Nudger]

Another fine example of your selectivity in dealing with the consensus of scholars. I don't think we've identified a single example, yet, of you actually agreeing with scholarship on any particular.

[Fake Messiah]

Showing your ignorance again I see. Matthew was an educated man, he was a former tax collector, you should read before making yourself look sooooo dumb. The reason we have them in Greek is because they are copies, understand, most likely not. Greek was a language spoken by many in the Middle East at that time, just as English is spoken around the world.

GC

You retard, Matthew wasn't a tax collector but a toll booth worker - read the Matthew 9:9.

Tax collectors would have had to recieve education in accounting and a certain degree of functional literacy for managing records, and not much more especially if he was a toll booth worker like Matthew sitting at a booth to collect tolls. Meaning that Matthew was even lesser than a regular tax collector. 

Also even in the Synoptic Gospels tax collectors are frequently associated with sinners and Gentiles, and that the Pharisees repeatedly accuse Jesus for associating with them. Needless to say this view of Matthew’s occupation does not cast Matthew, a tax collector working at toll booth, as someone deeply familiar with Jewish Law or with extensive religious training.

The author had extensive knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures and a keen concern for Jewish observance and the role of the Law. It is doubtful that a toll booth worker would have the kind of religious and literary education needed to produce this Gospel.

And when it comes to language in Roman Palestine Catherine Hezser in her book "Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine" explains that tax collectors and toll collectors in Judea were jobs performed by Jews collecting either for the Jewish authorities or Jewish contractors, we have every reason to expect that the language of the tax bureaucracy was Hebrew or Aramaic. In fact, she writes:
“The rabbis would try to keep people from registering Greek contracts in public archives, since they would then automatically be taken out of their own sphere of influence. Only Hebrew and Aramaic documents would be subjected to native law, i.e. Torah and rabbinic law in the case of Palestine.”