Did any author in the New Testament actually know Jesus?

Josephus had plenty to say about Herod. Not all of it positive.

quote:

---

For these reasons Mariamne reproached Herod, and his sister and mother, after a most contumelious manner, while he was dumb on account of his affection for her; yet had the women great indignation at her, and raised a calumny against her, that she was false to his bed; which thing they thought most likely to move Herod to anger. They also contrived to have many other circumstances believed, in order to make the thing more credible, and accused her of having sent her picture into Egypt to Antony, and that her lust was so extravagant, as to have thus showed herself, though she was absent, to a man that ran mad after women, and to a man that had it in his power to use violence to her. This charge fell like a thunderbolt upon Herod, and put him into disorder...

​

...His passion also made him stark mad, and leaping out of his bed, he ran about the palace after a wild manner; at which time his sister Salome took the opportunity also to blast her reputation, and confirmed his suspicion about Joseph; whereupon, out of his ungovernable jealousy and rage, he commanded both of them to be slain immediately; but as soon as ever his passion was over, he repented of what he had done, and as soon as his anger was worn off, his affections were kindled again. And indeed the flame of his desires for her was so ardent, that he could not think she was dead, but would appear, under his disorders, to speak to her as if she were still alive, till he were better instructed by time, when his grief and trouble, now she was dead, appeared as great as his affection had been for her while she was living.

---

and

quote:

---

These confessions did so terrify Herod, that he durst not immediately publish them; but he sent spies abroad privately, by night and by day, who should make a close inquiry after all that was done and said; and when any were but suspected [of treason], he put them to death, insomuch that the palace was full of horribly unjust proceedings; for every body forged calumnies, as they were themselves in a state of enmity or hatred against others; and many there were who abused the king's bloody passion to the disadvantage of those with whom they had quarrels, and lies were easily believed, and punishments were inflicted sooner than the calumnies were forged. He who had just then been accusing another was accused himself, and was led away to execution together with him whom he had convicted; for the danger the king was in of his life made examinations be very short. He also proceeded to such a degree of bitterness, that he could not look on any of those that were not accused with a pleasant countenance, but was in the most barbarous disposition towards his own friends

---

I see no reason that Josephus would skip past the massacre of the innocents in his discussion on Herod's life and times.Maybe you could think of some?1. He hadn't heard of it. Sounds unlikely.
2. He decided not to record it because it looked bad for Herod. Unlikely.
3. He decided that the story was unreliable hearsay so didn't record it. Possbile.
4. He had never heard it. Strong possibility.Any others?4B Maybe Matthew created the story so as to draw a paralell between Jesus and Moses.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I can only imagine you are taking part in too many discussions, and have forgotten what your own point was. Allow me to go over it again:In Message 202 you were asked when was Justin Martyr testifying to Matthew writing Matthew/the authenticity of Matthew (if you go back further to Message 186 you can get more context).In Message 205, you responded that Justin Martyr was born about 110CE.In Message 222, Kapyong rebutted that Justin Martyr didn't start writing until the 150s and that he didn't mention the name of a single evangelist and asked you to quote Justin Martyr naming the Gospel writers.Finally you write Kapyong and you were both talking about Justin Martyr attesting to the authorship of Matthew, not Josephus. I'd still like to hear your answer to the original question - when is the earliest time when Matthew was attributed to Matthew?Also this is from Message 224By that naive criterion, the Gospel of Thomas was written by Didymos Judas Thomas.

Kapyong has resumed the thread of discussion about authorship of Matthew, I'll allow you to answer his post in that regard rather than repeating the question myself. I know he isn't considered an 'authentic Christian writer', by which I choose to interpret as 'canonical'. The author was certainly a Christian, it just wasn't the same kind of Christianity as the kind that proscribed it.You said "He likely did write it", I'm fairly sure you don't really mean what that sounds like. It is likely that a man wrote it, for sure, but he sounds like you are saying that it is likely that the Apostle Thomas wrote it? No - because your next sentence is "who he was is unknown".If, for some reason, you had forgotten who Thomas was (!) See John 20:24-29

quote:

---

But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

​

The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

​

And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: [then] came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace [be] unto you.

​

Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust [it] into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

​

Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed.

---

The author of the Gospel of Thomas claims to be the same Apostle and one of the twelve disciples of Christ that the author of John claims to be describing above.It seems fitting that I ask you to disprove that Thomas wrote the Gospel of Thomas. If you cannot, should we assume that it was in fact Thomas that wrote it? During your answer you might want to consider also how the claim of authorship in 1 Peter is different enough to avoid disqualification, since that is the point I am trying to drive you towards.Likewise, can you disprove that Simon Peter did not write the text that this came from:

quote:

---

Now it was the last day of Unleavened Bread, and many were returning to their homes since the feast was ending. But we, the twelve disciples of the Lord, continued weeping and mourning, and each one still grieving for what had happened, left for his own home. But I, Simon Peter, and Andrew my brother, took our fishing nets and went to the sea.

---

(From the gospel of Peter)Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

The thing with Gospels is that they aren't title "The Gospel of Thomas/Mark/Matthew". If it had been titled 'The Gospel of Saint Thomas', that would be obviously problematic since saints don't write things since to be a saint you have to generally be dead.Still if you don't think that the following,

quote:

---

These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down.

---

is claiming to be Thomas, known as Didymos also known as Judas, Apostle, disciple of Jesus, and a witness to the secret things Jesus said to him...then I am at a loss for words. Suffice to say that pretty much everybody in the world disagrees with you on this point and we'll move on.If you didn't outright deny what everybody else can see with their own eyes, and it did claim to be written by an Apostle - would this be evidence that the account was from an eyewitness? Or might it be more likely that the author pretended it was written by an Apostle in order to convince people of the authority of his work? It is highly unlikely you've even read a paragraph about this book because it contains no miracles or accounts of Jesus' childhood. Does this mean that Matthew and Luke are completely contradictory to Mark? After all, Mark doesn't mention Jesus' birth. Having more information than someone else, doesn't necessarily mean that the account is wrong. It is highly likely that there were far more Christian Gospels that the canonical Gospels were not harmonious with than the other way around.
So no, you have failed to disprove it.

quote:

---

Matthew, again, relates His generation as a man, saying, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham; " and also, "The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise."

---

That matches up with Matt 1:1 and Matt 1:18