According to the theory of the originally anonymous gospels, the titles of the most ancient surviving manuscripts were added later on. I would like to know: **For each gospel, how many different, distinct, "assigners" were there? When did they do the assignment and where were they?** I am not asking about the authorship of the gospels, but supposing there were no titles, **who** assigned them. For example: **The gospel according to Matthew was assigned by:** 1) X1 person or group, in the Y century in the Z region. 2) X2 person or group, ..."" If much of this is not possible at least list the number of the different assigners and whether they may have assigned these texts independently of one another. **The gospel according to Luke... ""** Please give sources, thank you!

Matthew 13:44 reads: > The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which someone found and hid; then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. One is intrigued by the step-by-step action of the finder. He could have easily taken the treasure. That prospect leads one to believing that there was some law which defined the ownership of a treasure, both legal and moral. (These days it usually goes to the Government, whoever be the one who finds it, and whatever be the place it is found in!). Are there any studies into the legal system prevailing at the time of Jesus that defined the ownership of a treasure ?

Jesus, being divine, is portrayed in the Gospels as knowing the hearts and thoughts of men (John 2:25, Matthew 9:4). In the Garden of Gethsemane, Peter draws a sword (or knife) and cuts off the ear of the high priest's servant (John 18:10), only to be rebuked by Jesus and told to put it away (Matthew 26:52). Given that Jesus had divine foreknowledge and perfect awareness of His surroundings, why did He allow Peter to carry or hide the knife in the first place? Was Jesus allowing this act to happen as part of a prophetic fulfillment or a deeper lesson on violence and obedience? Or does this highlight something about the tension between human zeal and divine purpose? How do Christian theologians and commentators interpret this moment in light of Jesus’ omniscience?

In Mark 4:37–39 (also in Matthew 8:23–27 and Luke 8:22–25), a violent storm arises while Jesus and His disciples are crossing the Sea of Galilee. Jesus is asleep in the boat, and when the disciples wake Him, He rebukes the wind and speaks to the waves, calming the storm: > "He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, 'Quiet! Be still!' Then the wind died down and it was completely calm." — Mark 4:39 (NIV) What stands out is that Jesus rebukes the storm in the same language He often uses when dealing with demons (e.g., Mark 1:25, Luke 4:35). Shortly after this event, Jesus arrives in the region of the Gerasenes and confronts a man possessed by a legion of demons (Mark 5:1–13), who ultimately beg to be cast into a herd of pigs—which then rush into the sea and drown. Some theologians and preachers have connected these events, suggesting that: **The storm may have been a demonic attempt to kill Jesus and His disciples before He could deliver the demoniac.** Question: According to various Christian theological perspectives (e.g., evangelical, Catholic, Orthodox, etc.), is there reason to believe that the storm was caused by demonic forces rather than being a natural phenomenon? How do different traditions interpret the storm in light of the nearby exorcism and the association of demons with the sea?

While I understand there are many potential passages in the Bible of Jesus claiming to be a messiah (which I understand to mean "anointed"), a king, or one through whom it is necessary to know God, I'm interested to know if there are any places where He *literally* claims to be God, God-like, or related to God (i.e. the son of God). Taking the Bible to be a reliable record of what He said (for the sake of this question), what Biblical passages illustrate Jesus literally saying He was God? OP Edit: I see that my question has been edited to say "literally" which has caused a bit of turmoil, so I'll just say that for me "literally" is read to mean "literally stated, or inferred without interpretation". So "I intend to put on foot coverings" does not literally mean shoes, as it could mean socks, but "I intend to drive to the capital city of the country England" means you'll end up in London no matter which way you swing it. Interestingly I did try to ask the Biblical Hermenutics group this question and it was suggested I ask here.

The Gospels record many parables spoken by Jesus, often used to teach moral or spiritual truths. Some of these, like the parable of the prodigal son or the good Samaritan, contain vivid, lifelike details. This raises the question: Were these stories based on actual historical events and people known to His audience, or were they entirely fictional narratives created to convey deeper lessons? I’m curious how different traditions or scholars interpret this — are there clues in the texts or historical context that suggest one view over the other?

In multiple passages, Jesus explicitly commands people not to speak about the miracles He performed. For example: - Mark 1:44 – "See that you say nothing to anyone..." (healing of the leper) - Matthew 9:30 – "Jesus sternly warned them, ‘See that no one knows about this.’” (healing of the blind men) - Luke 8:56 – "He charged them to tell no one what had happened." (raising of Jairus’s daughter) Yet these very events were recorded and widely circulated in the Gospels. Why did Jesus initially discourage publicity around His miracles, but the Gospel authors — writing years later — chose to publish them for all to read?

What is the significance of discrepancies between the four Gospels? Some will argue that there are differences but not discrepancies. But I only ask this in order to share my answer with the few people who will see it before it is closed.

### Temple Incident All four canonical Christian gospels record an (potentially more than one, but not pertinent here) incident where Jesus enters the Temple, observes money-changers and merchants selling animals inside the Temple, and drives them out of the Temple with a whip: Mark: > Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves, and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. He was teaching and saying, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers.” Matthew 21: > Then Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who were selling and buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves. He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it a den of robbers.” Luke 19: > Then he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling things there, and he said, “It is written, ‘My house shall be a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a den of robbers.” John 2: > The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves and the money changers seated at their tables. Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, with the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. He told those who were selling the doves, “Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father’s house a marketplace!” ### Money Changers *Mishnah Shekalim* records that on the 25th of Adar (just before Passover) money-changers sat in the Temple to help Jews exchange currency and pay the required half-shekel donation prescribed in Exodus 30:13–16​. ### Animal Sellers The *Torah* and *Mishnah* teach that animals like doves were offered by poorer worshipers (for example, as sin offerings or after childbirth), and these birds could easily become blemished during travel. Thus it was entirely reasonable to buy the doves in Jerusalem instead of bringing them from home since a blemished animal would be invalid as an offering (Leviticus 12:6–8, Leviticus 5:7, *Mishnah Keritot* 1:7 & *Mishnah Bekhorot* 7:6) ### Question Given that both money-changers and animal sellers were performing vital services required for Temple services, what do various Christian denominations believe the reason was for Jesus whipping them out of the Temple? What sources do Christian denominations use as support for accusations of corruption/robbery occurring in the Temple?

> Matthew 17:3 Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, > talking with Jesus. > > 4 Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you > wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one > for Elijah.” I am wondering how Peter recognized that the men were Elijah and Moses? Photographs and portraits didn't exist back in those days. If they did, Peter being a fisherman wouldn't have been to school to see them. And I doubt Moses and Elijah began their conversation by saying - "Hello Jesus, I am Elijah and this is my buddy Moses." So how would Peter know it was Elijah standing there?

Some of those who subscribe to the theory that the Jesus traditions were not published until decades after the resurrection assert that authorized tradents were responsible for accurately preserving the traditions via "oral tradition" methods. For example, Richard Bauckham contends that > Of crucial importance for our whole argument in this book is the role of individual authors and tradents of Jesus traditions. We have suggested that the traditions were originated and formulated by named eyewitnesses, in whose name they were transmitted and who remained the living and active guarantors of the traditions. **In local Christian communities which did not include eyewitnesses among their members, there would probably be recognized teachers who functioned as authorized tradents of the traditions they had received from the eyewitnesses either directly or through very few (authorized) intermediaries.**1 Which leads to the question: What percentage of the 1st century Christian population is assumed to have served as (Bauckham-style) authorized tradents of the oral tradition, who would have accurately memorized something comparable to what would one day be contained in Matthew's Gospel? [Reference to a published estimate would be most appreciated.] Ultimately, am trying to establish whether this is a greater percentage than those who were literate (at least able to read) within the early Christian population. ___ 1 Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017), 290.

Many who theorize concerning Gospel origins claim that the material which was ultimately published in the four Gospels was preserved almost exclusively as oral traditions, carefully tended by local tradents, until the Gospels began to be published thirty to fifty years after the ascension. For example, Richard Bauckham contends that > Of crucial importance for our whole argument in this book is the role of individual authors and tradents of Jesus traditions. We have suggested that the traditions were originated and formulated by named eyewitnesses, in whose name they were transmitted and who remained the living and active guarantors of the traditions. In local Christian communities which did not include eyewitnesses among their members, there would probably be recognized teachers who functioned as authorized tradents of the traditions they had received from the eyewitnesses either directly or through very few (authorized) intermediaries.1 Accordingly, how long is it theorized that it would take to teach the Jesus traditions, such as what would one day be contained in Matthew's Gospel, to new tradents who would be responsible for accurately preserving such via oral tradition methods? [Reference to a book/article on the topic would be greatly appreciated.] On Paul's second missionary journey he makes it out to Macedonia (Acts 16–17). However, his visits to Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, etc. are characterized as being both brief and mostly evangelistic, rather than instructional (i.e., training a tradent). Relative to Thessalonica, Acts 17:2 indicates that Paul reasoned in the synagogue for a mere three Sabbaths; although, Paul's epistles suggest that he was in the city for more than two or three weeks. Even if for a slightly longer period, Paul's letters from Corinth applaud the Thessalonians for their grasp of the traditions (2 Thess. 2:15) and their dissemination of the word (1 Thess. 1:8). But was he there in each of these cities long enough to train up a tradent? > To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter. (2 Thessalonians 2:14–15 ESV) Am trying to draw a comparison between how long it would take to help someone accurately memorize a set of material akin to Matthew, without recourse to a written document, as opposed to simply making a copy of a document. It would seem much more effective to instead leave behind a copy of a Gospel, given that Matthew could be copied within a week. (A related question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/105788/what-percentage-of-the-1st-century-christian-population-served-as-authorized-tra) P.S. I do recognize that some scholars deny that there were formal tradents or that anyone necessarily preserved anything accurately. ____ 1 Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017), 290.

In multiple New Testament passages the Disciples and even Jesus appear to think He would return within one generation or so: 1. Jesus says, 'What I say to you, I say to all: Watch, for you know not the hour ...' or 'Some here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.' (Mt 16, Lk 9) 2. Paul encourages people to remain in their current states of life (e.g. celibate) in anticipation of Jesus' return. 3. The Christians waited to produce a written record of Jesus' teachings when need for it became apparent. (Such need was not immediately apparent because they thought Jesus would return soon.) I can only guess that Jesus' return and the hour of our death are equivalent, hence Jesus tells everyone to keep watch, but I don't see that this interpretation is supported by the text. Rather, the text literally suggests that the end of the world would come at any time, but then Jesus has delayed it by 2,000 years, which seems unjust to all those generations, and to us as well, leaving us in a kind of painful suspense. So what's the deal? Why did Jesus cause and allow the early Christians to be mistaken about the timeframe of His return? I did read a book arguing that Jesus was actually using symbolic language to refer to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, but this theory merely replaces those questions with why Jesus would make His written testimony unreasonably difficult to understand.

It seems that there is some form of hierarchy within the Trinity. For example, these passages seem to indicate that the Holy Spirit is subservient to the Father and Jesus: >[John 14:26 (NIV)](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:26&version=NIV)
>But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. > >[John 15:26 (NIV)](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2015:26&version=NIV)
>When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. Also, it seems that the Father has control over Jesus: >[Matthew 26:39 (NIV)](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026:39&version=NIV)
>Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.” My understanding is that the Trinity is three persons in one God. Therefore, each person in the Trinity is equal to the other two. Yet, the verses above seem to indicate that there's a hierarchy. ----------- Is there a hierarchy (and my previous understanding flawed) or is there a deeper understanding of what's going on in those verses above? I'm seeking a [Mainstream Protestant](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainline_Protestant) exegesis and viewpoint on this issue.

This question discusses the differences between Marcan priority and Matthean priority and asks about the arguments in favor of Matthean priority. My question is who holds and promotes this view. I heard the claim made that there are only a few scholars who hold to this view and that Marcan priority is almost undisputed. Is it true that the overwhelming majority of Christian and secular scholars hold to Marcan priority? Who are the major voices on the side of Matthean priority? Is there a reliable indication of what proportion of the scholarly community holds to Matthean priority or disputes Marcan priority? I'll also accept a well-sourced answer confirming the claim that Marcan priority is all but undisputed.

It's only in the King James and the New King James, but why is Jesus' name in all caps? > And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: > for he shall save his people from their sins.**Matthew 1:21** > > And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, > and shalt call his name JESUS. **Luke 1:31** It isn't like this anywhere else in the Bible. The word in the Greek is the same as in other instances of the name. Why? And why only in the KJV?

When the New Testament was written1, were the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John already considered Scripture? 1 Acts - Revelation. Obviously there is overlap in when these were written (they are not included in the NT in chronological order), but were the known Gospels considered Scripture?

This is just a question that has intrigued me and I can't think of a definite answer. I understand that the presence of God dwelt first in the Tabernacle and then in Solomon's temple in Jerusalem. God promised to dwell with His people as long as they were faithful to Him, but Israel rebelled. God allowed them to be taken captive by the Babylonians who then destroyed the temple as well. Also, [Ezekiel](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+10&version=ESVUK) talks about God's presence leaving the temple due to Israel's unfaithfulness. Israel is eventually restored and the priesthood continues, as well as the temple and sacrificial system. God promises countless times about the full restoration of the temple, obviously pointing forward to Jesus. So my question: **Did God's presence ever return to the temple in post-exile Israel?** If so **Was God's presence still dwelling in the temple while Jesus was on Earth?** I'm sorry my Scripture references are lacking, I hope this question makes sense.

At John 2:14-16 (NRSVCE) we read: > In the temple he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables. Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. He told those who were selling the doves, “Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father’s house a marketplace!” We see Jesus adopting a lenient approach towards sellers of doves *vis-a-vis* those selling sheep and cattle. Is it because His parents had offered doves at the time of His own presentation to the Temple (Luke 2:24)? What do the teachings of Catholic Church reveal on the said 'differential treatment' of Jesus towards various merchants ?

I am not entirely convinced that the idea of marriages being divinely blessed or preferable of a Christian life is entirely Christian. It seems, aside from Matthew 19, that Christ is entirely unconcerned with the concept of marriage and teaches that a chaste life is the ideal Christian life. Most of the sentiment around marriage in Christian life seems to come from Pauline writings. Are there any other examples of Christ discussing the topic of erotic love/marriage aside from this discussion around divorce/eunuchs?