"Love Your Enemies" and the "Good Samaritan" Added After the Crucifixion?

[Tim B]

So, I just read, in the outer text of a book called "The Evolution of God" that the parts in Scripture where Jesus says to "Love your enemies" and the story about the "Good Samaritan" were added in after the Crucifixion (or, I suppose, more accurately, after the first Gospels were already written). Now, I've done some studying on Scripture, and I know that the Jesus and the woman who was about to get stoned, as well as the resurrection account within Mark (Mark 16:9-20) was added in later copies of the Gospels. (Although, I have heard one scholar suggest that Jesus and the woman about to be stoned was probably a story originally in Luke.) But I've never heard the accusation made against the two above quotes of Jesus. Does anybody have any information on this, regarding this claim, and whether or not there's any truth in it?

Thanks guys!

[Raggedy Anne]

Tim,

Here's the thing for me.  I know I can never study enough to "figure out" who added what to the scriptures at any given time.  But the Holy Spirit CAN speak to me through the scriptures and without the scriptures, so I just don't try to figure these things out.  Now if you feel the need to search these things out, that is your business.  For me, it would be a futile way to spend my time.   I never read before about the story about Jesus and the woman being an add on.   The thing is, anyone can say anything at anytime.  And if you google just about any statement imaginable, you will likely find someone to support just about everything that man can think of.  People make stuff up out of thin air all the time.  It's no wonder so few people have any enduring faith after passing through this world.

Anne

[Tim B]

So, yeah, I delved more into the book (it was given to me by my brother's girlfriend, who had just read the introduction, for my birthday) and it seems that this guy is just drawing lots of conclusions that don't necessarily, or logically, follow. He doesn't actually have any early manuscripts that do not include the "Love Your Enemies" and the "Good Samaritan" story, but he's willing to assume that they were added later on anyway. xD

He also thinks that Mark is considered the earliest gospel (which most scholars would agree on), but he seems to think it was written around 70 AD. But such a statement is WAY off. I've read of an atheist, the man who started the "Death of God" movement, that said he thinks the gospel of Matthew AND John could be as early as 40 AD: only 7 to 10 years after Christ's crucifixion. (He, in this case, despite generally consensus of scholars, puts Mark at 45 AD.)

John A. T. Robinson. Known for his role in launching the 'Death of God' movement, Robinson wrote a revolutionary book titled Redating the New Testament, in which he posited revised dates for the New Testament books that place them earlier than the most conservative scholars ever held. Robinson places Matthew at 40 to after 60, Mark at about 45 to 60, Luke at before 57 to after 60, and John at from 40 to after 65. This would mean that one of who Gospels could have been written as early as seven years after the crucifixion. At the latest they were all composed within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses and contemporaries of the events. Assuming the basic integrity and reasonable accuracy of the writers, this would place the reliability of the New Testaments beyond reasonable doubt.

He also claims that Paul, not Jesus, was the man who expounded so much more on God's love for humanity. He believes that Jesus wasn't actually very loving (or, at least, didn't talk to much about it), and most references to love (for instances, the quotes above) were added later. To be honest, he'd probably be (intellectually speaking) torn to pieces within an actual debate on the subject. So yeah... I'm probably gonna take his thoughts with a grain of salt. Even if some of them could be accurate, I'd be hard pressed to just accept all of his "facts" as "facts".

[WhiteWings]

Is there a reason why that person claims that?
Sometimes defending a doctrines goes very far.
I can't remeber any detail but once was reading a quite long article defending a certain view.
Luke was an inaccurate write. Mark was... etc.
Basicly those writers had written verses that rebuked his doctrine so basicly his suggestion was that those books should be removed for correct understanding of the Bible.
So; is teh person of that book pushing a doctrine that requires the mentioned verses removed?

[WhiteWings]

He believes that Jesus wasn't actually very loving

Then I wonder why He forgave the ones who crucified Him.

Isn't the removing of all the love verses about proving wrath. A.k.a. hell is true?

[Tim B]

Is there a reason why that person claims that?
Sometimes defending a doctrines goes very far.
I can't remeber any detail but once was reading a quite long article defending a certain view.
Luke was an inaccurate write. Mark was... etc.
Basicly those writers had written verses that rebuked his doctrine so basicly his suggestion was that those books should be removed for correct understanding of the Bible.
So; is teh person of that book pushing a doctrine that requires the mentioned verses removed?

Well, I got it for my birthday from my brother's girlfriend, but she didn't realize what the book was about. She got it for me because I really like reading about the historicity of the New Testament, and such, but she didn't realize it was written by an agnostic. Which, you know, doesn't mean it can't make for a good read, but for whatever reason he insists on saying that Jesus wasn't so keen on love, and Paul was the one who really started the whole "God loves all people" idea.

Here's a little about him, his name is Robert Wright:

Robert Wright (born 1957 in Lawton, Oklahoma) is an American journalist, scholar, and prize-winning author of best-selling books about science, evolutionary psychology, history, religion, and game theory, including The Evolution of God, Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny, The Moral Animal, and Three Scientists and Their Gods: Looking for Meaning in an Age of Information. He is a visiting scholar at The University of Pennsylvania and Schwartz Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Wright_(journalist)

[anti_nietzsche]

Stuff like that gives me doubts too, it's nightmarish stuff if you think through such claims.

Which is why I try to stay within the boundaries of orthodoxy, as best as I can. It would be really bad if God wouldn't see about the bible being interpreted right by our scholars and teachers, at least when it comes to the necessities of salvation.

I think we are well advised to consider what David said in one of his psalms, that we should not interfer with that which goes over our head, which is too wonderful for us, by which biblical language also means the terrible and frightening.

[Gab]

He also thinks that Mark is considered the earliest gospel (which most scholars would agree on), but he seems to think it was written around 70 AD. But such a statement is WAY off. I've read of an atheist, the man who started the "Death of God" movement, that said he thinks the gospel of Matthew AND John could be as early as 40 AD: only 7 to 10 years after Christ's crucifixion. (He, in this case, despite generally consensus of scholars, puts Mark at 45 AD.)

Where are you getting that that statement is way off?

"Most scholars date the Gospel of Mark to sometime between 60 AD and 80 AD."

A date of 70 AD is right bang in the middle of that range.

[Tim B]

He also thinks that Mark is considered the earliest gospel (which most scholars would agree on), but he seems to think it was written around 70 AD. But such a statement is WAY off. I've read of an atheist, the man who started the "Death of God" movement, that said he thinks the gospel of Matthew AND John could be as early as 40 AD: only 7 to 10 years after Christ's crucifixion. (He, in this case, despite generally consensus of scholars, puts Mark at 45 AD.)

Where are you getting that that statement is way off?

"Most scholars date the Gospel of Mark to sometime between 60 AD and 80 AD."

A date of 70 AD is right bang in the middle of that range.

Oh, well, I've heard, that Mark's earliest source material is considered to be as early as 7 years after the crucifixion, so for it to be written in 70 AD (especially, considering that was during the destruction of Jerusalem), seems a bit off.

Consider this: Acts is supposed to have been written after Mark, yet Acts doesn't record the death of Paul which occurred at 63 AD (if I remember correctly). This suggests that Acts was written before 63 AD, and therefore that Mark is at least earlier than 63 AD.

Think about this also: Imagine a historian following around Martin Luther King Jr at the time before his death, recording much of what happened to Martin Luther King Jr. Suppose we find this historian's writings on Martin Luther King Jr, but we find that he didn't record King Junior's assassination. Would we think it was written before, or after his assassination? Definitely before.

Similar is the case with Acts. Because Paul's execution is not recorded in the book of Acts, it's extremely fair to say that Acts was written before 63 AD, and thus Mark before that.

[noname]

does it matter when it was written as the spirit of these quotes/stories is the mind of a benevolent God

have we not seen enough times now on this planet that hating your enemy creates more enemies and that it sometimes always come back to haunt us? when are we going to learn that hating your enemy only results in pain andf suffering for both?
and what goes hand in hand with the "love your enemies" quote...is that "the peacemakers shall inherit the earth" ( the new earth that is)

and regarding the good samaritan...I think it is a good lesson especially in the modern day just as it was in the time when Jesus walked the earth...the Jews again think themselves superior to all races as they did back then...some christians think they are the only chosen ones...theres much hate between races, countries, religions...you name it

Tim B...rather consider the lessons to learn...the rest are just semantics :2c:

[Gab]

Oh, well, I've heard, that Mark's earliest source material is considered to be as early as 7 years after the crucifixion, so for it to be written in 70 AD (especially, considering that was during the destruction of Jerusalem), seems a bit off.

Consider this: Acts is supposed to have been written after Mark, yet Acts doesn't record the death of Paul which occurred at 63 AD (if I remember correctly). This suggests that Acts was written before 63 AD, and therefore that Mark is at least earlier than 63 AD.

Think about this also: Imagine a historian following around Martin Luther King Jr at the time before his death, recording much of what happened to Martin Luther King Jr. Suppose we find this historian's writings on Martin Luther King Jr, but we find that he didn't record King Junior's assassination. Would we think it was written before, or after his assassination? Definitely before.

Similar is the case with Acts. Because Paul's execution is not recorded in the book of Acts, it's extremely fair to say that Acts was written before 63 AD, and thus Mark before that.

I haven't heard the assertion before that Mark was definitely written after Acts.  What's the basis for that claim?  Scholars largely agree that the author of Acts was also the author of Luke, not Mark.

At any rate, I don't think it's fair to just discard the evidence in favor of a later dating of Mark, such as the recorded statement that it was written after the death of Peter and Paul (around 65 AD), or his apparent knowledge of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (70 AD).

[WhiteWings]

http://www.bethinking.org/resources/the-dating-of-the-new-testament.htm
http://www.biblestudy.org/beginner/when-was-new-testament-written.html
http://www.iamnext.com/spirituality/NTrely.html

[Tim B]

Oh, well, I've heard, that Mark's earliest source material is considered to be as early as 7 years after the crucifixion, so for it to be written in 70 AD (especially, considering that was during the destruction of Jerusalem), seems a bit off.

Consider this: Acts is supposed to have been written after Mark, yet Acts doesn't record the death of Paul which occurred at 63 AD (if I remember correctly). This suggests that Acts was written before 63 AD, and therefore that Mark is at least earlier than 63 AD.

Think about this also: Imagine a historian following around Martin Luther King Jr at the time before his death, recording much of what happened to Martin Luther King Jr. Suppose we find this historian's writings on Martin Luther King Jr, but we find that he didn't record King Junior's assassination. Would we think it was written before, or after his assassination? Definitely before.

Similar is the case with Acts. Because Paul's execution is not recorded in the book of Acts, it's extremely fair to say that Acts was written before 63 AD, and thus Mark before that.

I haven't heard the assertion before that Mark was definitely written after Acts.  What's the basis for that claim?  Scholars largely agree that the author of Acts was also the author of Luke, not Mark.

At any rate, I don't think it's fair to just discard the evidence in favor of a later dating of Mark, such as the recorded statement that it was written after the death of Peter and Paul (around 65 AD), or his apparent knowledge of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (70 AD).

Wait, I'm trying to say that Mark was written BEFORE Acts. I'm also under the understanding that the author of Acts also wrote Luke. Mark was written by another author.

[jesushandsarekindhands]

Ive been on some Atheist sites where they have just told blatant lies to try to ridicule Christianity!  And Ive been on Christian websites that have lied about science etc etc to try to get one up on the atheists (Who could forget the hell preaching evangelist Ray Comforts 'evolution of the banana'?, its pathetic.  So pathetic that i dont have anything to do with it anymore.  I never heard Ray say "Sorry" to the science world about that, or heard any atheists say sorry for adding 20 or 50 years onto the dates when the gospels were written.  I just accept that i cant know every fact and just leave it.  Ive accepted the fact that the world is a mess, mankind needs a saviour etc etc, and am happy enough that everything is in the best hands possible. 
Debating is good for spell...But theres no end to it.  A little can be good but too much is fruitless, and there are people out their who dont even care what the truth is, they will just defend their cause to the death, even if it means lying or posting links to websites containing knowledge of which they actually know nothing of.  Lol!