Did any author in the New Testament actually know Jesus?

While it is quite likely that none of the NT books were written by anyone who knew Jesus we don't know for sure.John (which is not one of the synoptic Gospel - perhaps you meant "canonical" ?) may have been at least partly written by the disciple John (although the version we have includes later additions and there's no solid evidence one way or the other).There are good reasons to doubt that the authors of any of the synoptic Gospels knew Jesus, although it is often claimed that Matthew and Mark were disciples, too. (In fact it is often claimed that all four Gospels were written by eyewitnesses until it is pointed out that pretty much everyone agrees that Luke wasn't).As I understand it the Epistles attributed to Peter are generally accepted as pseudonymous by scholars. 1 John may have the same author as the Gospel, 2 & 3 John are less likely to be the same person. The Revelation is sometimes attributed to John the disciple but this is generally rejected by scholars.

quote:

---

Ancestry of a man was customarily traced back through the father, not through the mother. Thus, whereas there seems to be sound reason for believing that Luke presents Jesus’ genealogy through his mother (an exception to the general rule), Luke does not list her. He lists Joseph as the son of Heli, evidently Mary’s father. This would not be improper in the least, since Joseph would be Heli’s son-in-law

---

If ancestry is traced through the father as you say then it would be very improper to list the father-in-law instead of the father. Can you give any examples of a genealogy where this has been done ? I would also like to know what this "sound reason"" for assuming that Luke did it happens to be. So far as I know the only real reason for doing so is to deny the obvious contradiction between Luke and Matthew. And believe me, I've seen this argument trotted out many times.

quote:

---

as i said, a father in law was considered the father the groom anyway, so it makes no difference

---

I made three points.Firstly I pointed out that a similar assertion of yours contradicted another assertion (that it was patrilineal descent that matters) in the same post. You do not address that point. Please remember that it might be that the father-in-law was considered the father in some sense - without being considered the father in a genealogy.I asked for evidence that it was acceptable in genealogies to use the father-in-law's name instead of the father's in the way Luke did. An assertion is not evidence.I asked you to supply your "sound reason" that Luke DID use the name of Mary's father. An assertion that he might have done so - especially one backed by no evidence whatsoever - is not a sound reason to think that he did.So even though you don't say which of these three points "doesn't matter" - it seems that they all do.

quote:

---

in any case, if the accounts were inaccurate in any way whatsoever, the jewish religious leaders of the day would have made known the inaccuracy in a heartbeat... but the birth of Jesus and his genealogy was on public record available for anyone to view and there were no objections at the time to either luke or mathews accoutns.

---

Please show evidence that this information was available in "public records" (which ones ?) at the time the Gospels attributed to Luke and Matthew became available to "Jewish Leaders".

quote:

---

Jesus birth records. As the romans were ruling at the time, Caesar Augsutus decreed that all Jews must be registered in the city of their births, both Mary and Joseph had to travel to Bethlehem to register.

---

This is an example of dodgy history in the Gospels. To the best of our knowledge Augustus did not make any such decree. The closest match we can find is a tax census of Judaea which would have required adults (not children) to have registered where they lived. (Also note that Matthew insists that Jesus was born about 10 years prior to the Roman annexation of Judaea).

quote:

---

"He revived the office of the Censor which had long been disused and whose duty it had formerly been to take an account of the number of people."
Seutonius Roman Historian - Augustus 23 - Lives of the Twelve Caesars Page 81.

---

This refers to a count of Roman citizens. Neither Mary nor Joseph would have qualified, even after the Roman annexation of Judaea.

quote:

---

"This contained the number of citizens, subject kingdoms and taxes. All these details Augustus had written with his own hand"
Tacitus Annals - Book 1 Roman Historian

---

This again does not mean that there was a public record of Jesus' ancestry.

quote:

---

So like to today, they registered their births, they paid taxs, they conducted businesses...they kept records of all these things and those records were obviously used by Luke to trace the geneology of Jesus as he says in his writing.

---

It isn't even obvious that the detailed genealogy you refer to even existed as a public record at the time Luke was written - let alone that the unknown author of the Gospel used it. None of your quotes makes any reference to such a document, let alone gives us a reason to suppose that it would still be available at the time Luke was writing. (And there's good reason to doubt that any such records survived until then).

quote:

---

it really doesnt matter that they differ... both show that both Joseph & Mary came from the kingly line. Actually, if anything it adds weight to the geneology because both parents have been traced back.

---

Neither shows Mary as coming from the "kingly" line. And no, the extra names do not add any weight to the genealogies. In all probability both were simply cooked up on the assumption that Jesus was of the House of David.

quote:

---

but here is another source in case my simple answer is not scholarly enough

M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia (1881, Vol. III, p. 774): writes:

​

“In constructing their genealogical tables, it is well known that the Jews reckoned wholly by males, rejecting, where the blood of the grandfather passed to the grandson through a daughter, the name of the daughter herself, and counting that daughter’s husband for the son of the maternal grandfather (Numb. xxvi, 33; xxvii, 4-7).”

---

The references given do not support the claim. Numbers 27 deals with inheritance, not genealogy (and only applies where the maternal grandfather had no sons).

quote:

---

So in that culture, what would have been the point of using Mary alone as the source of the geneology. Do you really think the Jews would have taken the account seriously? It is undoubtedly for this reason the historian Luke says that Joseph was the “son of Heli.”

---

If the Jews would have discounted Mary's lineage the author of Luke should have given Joseph's real lineage instead of deceptively trying to pass off Mary's ancestry as Joseph's. So why didn't he do that ? You claim that he had the records, and that Joseph really was of the House of David so if you are right he had no need to try to deceive as you insist that he did.

quote:

---

You just have to look at Genesis and Numbers to see that female children were not recorded in the births...only the male children.

---

Your own source above provides the reference that proves you wrong:
Numbers 26:33 (NASB)

We're still waiting for a "sound reason" to think that the lineage in Luke is Mary's.

quote:

---

Since Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph but was the Son of God, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus would prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary.

---

Except that he doesn't try to do that. He says that the lineage is through Joseph.

quote:

---

I'm not sure what you see the problem as being, perhaps you could re phrase your concern???

---

The problem seems quite clear. You haven't produced one good reason to think that Luke is giving Mary's genealogy. All you've offered is unsupported assertions (which you refuse to support) that don't even agree with each other.

quote:

---

i dont know what your gettting at seriously

---

You haven't offered any good reason to think that Luke is giving Mary's genealogy. Why is that so hard to understand ?

quote:

---

Luke's geneology goes thru Heli who was Mary's father...father by blood... he WAS marys family line

---

Was he ? Where is the evidence that Heli was Mary's father ?

quote:

---

and this is not a problem because Joseph was the 'ADOPTIVE FATHER' of Jesus anyway... this gave jesus the legal status is as a son joseph and vise versa.

---

And back we go to the contradictions. If Joseph's line is the one that matters it is nuts to say that Luke was giving Mary's lineage.

quote:

---

Both families, Mary and Joseph, were of the kingly line. What is so hard to accept about this???

---

The fact that you have produced no evidence that Mary's family was of any kingly line. Simply repeating an assertion does not make it true.

quote:

---

Ok so basically you are against the idea that one can take any part of the biblical record on face value.

---

Where in the Bible does it say that Heli is Mary's father ?

quote:

---

Both parents lines have been given in the gospels...

---

How do you know this when the Bible does not claim to give Mary's line ?

quote:

---

If Jesus family line could be challenged, the Jewish scribes and pharisees would have challenged them in a flash seeing they held the records

---

The last time you were asked to support that claim you said that the Romans held the records. And you couldn't show that that was true, either. So, can you show that the Jewish "scribes and pharisees" had the records ?

quote:

---

you could have made this easier for me simply by saying that just because its written in the bible, doesn mean its true, therefore Mary could have been anyones daughter etc etc

---

Obviously you still do NOT see my point.Let's start with this fact.IT IS NOT WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE THAT MARY WAS HELI'S DAUGHTER.Do you understand that ?

Yes. I also see that it does NOT say that the maternal grandfather was always listed as the father's father. I also know - because I have already answered it earlier in the thread - that it is NOT supported by the verses they quote.So we need evidence that it is true, and evidence that it applied in the specific case of Luke's genealogy. (And of course if those points are true your assertion that the Jews would not accept Mary's genealogy is false, and the genealogy in Matthew is wrong).

quote:

---

im sorry, i still fail to see your point

---

Let us put it simply. Your quote from McLintock and Strong is NOT evidence that Luke was giving Mary's genealogy. Even if it were true (and it probably is not) it would only mean that Luke MIGHT be giving Mary's genealogy, and that only if certain other conditions were met (and Luke doesn't say that they are). (If you had bothered to answer my original rebuttal and actually READ the verses that McLintock and Strong cite - and more importantly the following verses that they DON'T cite - you might understand more.)

quote:

---

the way im reading this is that each gospel gave the family line, thru mary aka joseph via his father inlaw heli

---

And I am asking you to give me the evidence to support that reading. And instead all I get is speculations - and not even a coherent set of speculations.

quote:

---

Why Luke would do this is obvious. The jews didnt record females in their geneologies, only males. Joseph became the 'son in law' of Heli when he married Mary, therefore, he logically traced Mary's line thru Joseph and Heli, because Joseph would have been on public record now as a son of Heli.

---

The Gospel of Matthew (supposedly written by a Jew) includes women in the genealogy.You have produced no evidence that these alleged "public records" were even available, let alone evidence that they would list Joseph as Heli's son.Suppose that Luke had thought that Heli were really Joseph's father and not Mary's, how would his genealogy be any different ?

You do realise that that is almost certainly a legend ?It's not mentioned anywhere else in the Bible, not even by Luke (who gives a quite different story).It's not mentioned in any independant sources at all.An attempt to kill a destined child IS a common motif in legend (to name a famous few, Romulus and Remus, Krishna, Moses). There was even a related story about Augustus, itself almost certainly invented.And if you read Jeremiah 31 you will see that it says that the children will return home. Obviously it does not refer to the children supposedly killed by Herod.Still, if you have any good examples of prophecies where we can confirm that they really are about Jesus then you could start a new thread where they can seriously be examined.

quote:

---

8upwidit2 writes:

​

You are confusing eye witness and what somebody wrote about an eye witness.

how can you say Peter was not an eye witness? he was one of Jesus 12 apostles.

​

Luke wrote his gospel directly from the word of Peter who was most certainly an eye witness.

---

But there is no reason to suppose that Luke wrote down Peter's words directly. There is certainly no reason to believe that Luke was there - or even a Christian at the time - since he is usually identified as a gentile companion of Paul, even by conservative Christians. And there is no reason to assume that Luke got his account directly from Peter - he does not identify his sources.So, in all probability this section of Acts is a third-hand report at best. Hardly eye-witness testimony.

My understanding is that Irenaeus only agreed with Papias that Matthew had written in Aramaic (or Hebrew). He does not identify the author of the Gospel now called "Matthew" - which was most likely written in Greek and derived from Mark (itself second-hand).