From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

The synoptic gospels are pretty far from being identical. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 05:51, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Identical may have been a strong word, though they do follow the same timeline, have similar wording, etc. They are very similar. I'll change it to something a tad less absolute. --CSimpacted with knowledge 05:57, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
True, but their respective interpretations of what is going on are very different. Compare e.g. Mark's repeated mentions of the wp:Messianic_secret with Matthew's much stronger emphasis on the relationship between Jesus and the Jewish law. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 06:04, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
I tried to touch on that in saying there are cultural additions. Of course there are going to be subtle differences; the messianic secret is also brought up in Matthew and Luke (and on a personal note very intriguing in my studies). The only point(s) I was trying to make were (a.)they are "synoptic", (b.)they generally follow the same timeline, and (c.)they tell the same story with few "variations." --CSimpacted with knowledge 06:10, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
If you can make it less ambiguous, you're more than welcome to redo it. I'm bored and hitting up red links. (-; --CSimpacted with knowledge 06:12, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
Just a thought; is refering to the "catholic church" likely to be taken as indicating the "Roman Catholic " church when the major decsions were taken long before Rome split from the rest of the Orthodox church? Mick McT 07:32, 1 September 2008 (EDT)


The Gospel of John's approach is very different: it is postulated that John is writing to Greek-speaking Jews who are not believers in Jesus, and to strengthen the faith of Christians.

John, being the most mystical and least "preachy" of the four canonical gospels, was likely written for like-minded pagans who were turned off by prophecy, theology, and rules.

Also, this article contains a lot of unsourced speculation. Most notable would be the evaluation of someone's political leanings depending on which gospels they preferred.--"Shut up, Brx." 20:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, thanks. The 4 gosples "audiences" have been removed as those claims have nothing to do with anything currently discussed in academics. --Green mowse.pngGodotBe informed. Vote. 20:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I found sources for some of the material you took out, Dr. John Barnett teaches in further education.

I don't see anything there what would qualify Dr. John Barnett as reliable by mainstream wikipedia standards which IMHO we should be using as much as possible for our references. It says he was also a professor there (Grace Community Church) at the Master's Seminary and College. There is nothing that shows Barnett would be even remotely qualified as historical anthropologist, historian, or any other relevant field as far as regular wikipedia is concerned so I don't see why we should use his views here.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

In a similar vein, Richard Carrier's "Christ Myth" theory is widely considered to be extreme and unscholarly (see Wikipedia article on historicity of Jesus, for example). By citing him, we are relying on a rather irrational set of arguments posed by an atheist activist. Can we find a more credible source for perspectives on what we can learn from and about the four canonical gospels? I think the historicity of Jesus wikipedia article is pretty solid. Knibbe (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Non-Canonical Gospels section[edit]

Could someone point out where in the Gospel of Thomas Jesus even mentions hell; let alone describes it as temporary? Scherben (talk) 18:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Source needed on Josephus's antiquities of the Jews[edit]

"In Antiquities chapter 17 verse 27 Josephus expressly stated that as long as Herod the Great lived, the province of Judea was exempt from Roman taxation. Therefore, Luke's taxation census must have occurred after Herod's death, while Matthew requires it to have happened before."

Which one of books of the Antiquities of the Jews does he mention that in chapter 17. There are multiple books in Antiquities. (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

It's presumably Book 17 (none of the books seems to have 17 chapters). Ch 2 has some stuff but I wouldn't want to say anything too conclusive about its contents. --Annanoon (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Is this the passage in Book 17 Chapter 2 that this page is referring to? "1. AND now it was that Herod, being desirous of securing himself on the side of the Trachonites, resolved to build a village as large as a city for the Jews, in the middle of that country, which might make his own country difficult to be assaulted, and whence he might be at hand to make sallies upon them, and do them a mischief. Accordingly, when he understood that there was a man that was a Jew come out of Babylon, with five hundred horsemen, all of whom could shoot their arrows as they rode on horde-back, and, with a hundred of his relations, had passed over Euphrates, and now abode at Antioch by Daphne of Syria, where Saturninus, who was then president, had given them a place for habitation, called Valatha, he sent for this man, with the multitude that followed him, and promised to give him land in the toparchy called Batanea, which country is bounded with Trachonitis, as desirous to make that his habitation a guard to himself. He also engaged to let him hold the country free from tribute, and that they should dwell entirely without paying such customs as used to be paid, and gave it him tax-free. 2. The Babylonian was reduced by these offers to come hither; so he took possession of the land, and built in it fortresses and a village, and named it Bathyra. Whereby this man became a safeguard to the inhabitants against the Trachonites, and preserved those Jews who came out of Babylon, to offer their sacrifices at Jerusalem, from being hurt by the Trachonite robbers; so that a great number came to him from all those parts where the ancient Jewish laws were observed, and the country became full of people, by reason of their universal freedom from taxes. This continued during the life of Herod; but when Philip, who was [tetrarch] after him, took the government, he made them pay some small taxes, and that for a little while only; and Agrippa the Great, and his son of the same name, although they harassed them greatly, yet would they not take their liberty away. From whom, when the Romans have now taken the government into their own hands, they still gave them the privilege of their freedom, but oppress them entirely with the imposition of taxes. Of which matter I shall treat more accurately in the progress of this history."

If so, then it seems to be referring to a land exempt from Herod's taxation, not Roman taxation. (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Digging I found that the reference is given as "Ant 17:27" in Geza Vermes' Jesus: Nativity - Passion - Resurrection. So yes it is in book 17 and supposedly in section 17. "The Babylonian was reduced by these offers" is Ant 17:27 and the last line clearly states that Romans "oppress them entirely with the imposition of taxes."--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)