reply to post by cris7050
"The real truth is that the Gospels were rewritten for the Gentile Christian audience versus the original audience of Jewish-Christians. My evidence
is the negation and abrogation of the term - "Sabbath" in Mark' Gospel(13:18) versus Matthew's Gospel(24:20).
Through my own research the order of the Gospels: (1) John ,(2) Matthew ,(3) Mark ,(4) Luke."
Of course, naturally, the gospel 'message' was preached in Galilean Aramaic by Galileans to other Galileans and by Judaeans to other Judaeans (c. 36
- 66 CE) and it is possible that their quotations from 'the Hebrew scriptures'
were taken from or influenced by the Aramaic targums - certainly they were quoting a different text family than what is in the Masoretic Text used by
Protestants and Rabinnic Jews today (the socalled MT from c. 960 CE from Leningrad/StPetersburg) - to judge from the form of the Greek OT quotations
in the 1st canonical Greek gospel 'according to Matthew' whoever he was...either way the first form of the gospel message was ORAL not written. It
was only after the original followers began to die off that (at least in Palestine and the Levant) the message started to be written down - and it was
probably in Greek when it first was set in writing - the language of the Empire.
What killed off the disciples? Old age? Probably executions for sedition against Rome (the Roman 'Lex maiestatis' no King but Caesar' law meant
sacrifice to the Emperor as a god or at least do NOT acknowledge any other king - or be put to death)
The 1st Failed Jewish War against Rome (c. 66-72 CE) completed the Aramaic Oral phase once and for all - when Jerusalem and its environs were ground
to powder by the Roman Army - and the 'oral Aramaic gospel message' was then spoken /translated into Greek in the socalled Diaspora (with Aramaic
speakers having more or less been wiped out by the war - some 900,000 Palestinian 'jews' died during the War, mainly from starvation, disease and
fire, at least according to Jospehus.
So after 72 CE the gospel material was written down for DIASPORA Jews speaking Greek - and fter the War, any messianic movement at all would have
rubbed against Rabinnic Judaeism outside of Palestine (who were largely untouched by the War which they regarded as a Failure and a Folly condemned by
Heaven - judging by the devastaion).
But a pro-jewish core could not be completely erased from the material in the gospels, since after all R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir
(Greek: ho Iesous) was a Daviddic 'Pretender' Galilean from the tribe of Judah, and his 12 disciples (and other followers) were all Palestinian
Jews, mainly from the Galilee.
Read e.g. the anti Gentile pro Jewish Greek of 'Matthew' chapter 15 ('the Bar Enasha was sent ONLY to the Lost Sheep of the Elect of the House of
Yisro'el - and anyway since when would it be right to take the bread of the children out of their mouths and throw it away on the dogs under the
table?') which was addressed to a SyroPhoencian Gentile woman who had come to the good Rebbe for help with an exorcism for her daughter who had a
Even Saul of Tarsus, the capital of Roman Cilicia, who spoke Greek as his first language and was gentile-friendly still said things like 'to the Jew
first, of course, but also then to the Greek...' which is basically zionist racism by any standards.
In terms of the Priority of Mark (the 2nd canonical Greek Gospel), it seems clear that in terms of literary borrowings, that 'Matthew' and 'Luke'
(whoever they were ) despite having oral and written sources of their own (the 3rd gospel admitted as much e.g. in its first paragraph 'since many
before me have written accounts of what has transpired among us, it seemed good to me also to set in writing an account in order...' it is now agreed
by those who compare these texts line by line that Mark came first, and Matt and Luke improved upon his baby-Greek in their own separate ways - this
is the most logical way to understand the re-wording of Mark's awkward grammar whenever it rears its ugly head (which is a lot !).
The dating of the 4th canonical Greek gospel ('according to John the Elder' whoever he was) is a bone of contention since it seems to have been
re-written in several stages incorporating into its text what is known as the Signs Gospel ('this is the FIRST sign that ho Iesous performed...' ...
'this is the SECOND sign that ho Iesous performed...' - if you count them all there are (naturally) 7 of them...although the textual intros are
missing for the last several ones...
All four canonical Greek gospels contain very very early material (certain parts of the 4th gospel are older than the gospel of 'Mark, and certain
parts of 'Matthew' are older than 'Mark' but in their present forms, Mark is the most primitive (less edited) although probably longer originally.