Why did it take more than 100 years to write the first Gospels?

Is the bible reliable?

>>2976813
wut
Mark was written around AD 70.

>>2976813
schismatic niggers just cant stop. could you please switch to REAL christianity called orthodox church and forget about stupid schismatics believes. thanks

Consider that the most comprehensive biography of Alexander the Great wasn't written until 500 years after he died

>>2976813
Because Paul of Tarsus was the greatest marketing genius that ever lived.

>>2976830
And any changes based on (new) sources would be incorporated.
Are you willing to correct the bible based on evidence?

>>2976813
>Why did it take more than 100 years to write the first Gospels?
because before that they weren't needed
only after a generation who knew Christ was slowly dying out the need for written stories of Jesus have risen

>Were any of the Apostles even alive anymore then?
Probably not, but their traditions lived on.
Look out for Papias or Polycarpus or John the Presbyter for instance.

It didn't. The latest Gospel, John, was written maybe seventy years after the Passion.

According to Papias, Matthew was first in Hebrew. It was translated to Greek later, and the other Gospels were written in response to large numbers of Greek converts

>historians and biblical scholars arguing about when the gospels were written
>no problem, 4chan knows it was 70AD

>>2976888
Damn these new posters who joined chan after 300AD..... they dont know nuthin

>>2976813
The very first christian document (the Didache) has obvious references to the Mathew gospel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache

Nigga do you even read?

>>2976815
t. Jesuit "scholar"

>>2976813
>Were any of the Apostles even alive anymore then?
no, nobody who has written about Jesus has ever met him or has even met someone who has met him, except maybe James, brother of Jesus, if that James Paul met is the same James as in the gospels. (Which is in doubt, because Paul treats James more or less as any other Christian, not as the ONLY witness and brother to his savior.)

John even quotes "The Disciple whom Jesus loved", a character he never clarifies who that i and no other Gospel even mentions and has the balls to name him as his source: "It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true." - John 21:24

He apparently made someone up and then named him as his source.

The same people denying the early date for the canonical gospels would likely also advocate for the early date of the Gospel of Thomas.

Mark was written like 5o years after Jesus died. And there was an accumulating oral tradition during that gap. Hell, there could be earlier gospels that haven't been found yet

>>2976813
One apostle was and still is alive.

His holyness the pope, bishop of Rome, vicar od Christ.

File: 1492658538097.jpg (124KB, 638x359px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 638x359px

NT texts are probably the oldest example of writings in codex binding form influenced by Roman wax tablets. You can even see the holes for the binding in the oldest NT papyri. The Nag Hammadi codices were the earliest examples of complete codices before the were taken apart to be analyzed. Before that all manuscripts were in scroll form. Paul's letters were probably rolls originally also.

>>2979798
Wouldn't hold my breath for it since Paul's epistles are the earliest and the earliest gospel came 1-2 decades later. Otherwise he or someone would have mentioned it and it Luke's gospel wouldn't resemble the others so much. On the otherhand there is a testimony of an Aramaic version of Matthew along with various Gnostic texts some of which have been discovered and determined to be of later dates.

>>2976881
>According to Papias, Matthew was first in Hebrew. It was translated to Greek later,

A claim few if any modern scholars take seriously

>>2979831
It's more credible than a Turin shroud or Josephus quotes.

>>2979799
>eyeroll.gif

The Quran was written like 200 years after Muhammad's dead but this is rarely mentioned, Muslims talk about it like if it was a book brought from heaven .why?

>>2979859
Everyone knows that Islam and the Koran are just made up nonsense.

>>2979898
What's some historicity to prove this? Can you give me some details? Any interesting books?

>>2976813
Because it's all fictional.

>>2979831
Appeal to authority.

>>2979831
>>2979972
"modern" ≠ serious/reputable

>>2979972
Talking about what historians think about history is now a logical fallacy.

Christians will say the dumbest shit when they feel threatened.

I see this particular one all the time. If they learn there is a nearly unanimous agreement among the experts about something that harms their religion they will instantly cry out that's a conspiracy or doesn't count.

>>2976813
Where is the evidence that Jesus was born in the year zero?
Looks like an approximation.

>>2979799
Cringe.

File: logical nonfallacy.jpg (24KB, 998x226px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 998x226px

>>2979976
>"modern" ≠ serious/reputable

In this case it does

>>2980435
These people clearly dont understand how appeal to authority works

>>2976814

No

>>2979859
>The Quran was written like 200 years after Muhammad's dead but this is rarely mentioned,
It is rarely mentioned because it's bullshit?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana%27a_manuscript
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Quran_manuscript