பைபிள் புராணக் கதை நூல்கள் சர்ச் கட்டுப்பாட்டில்- சிறைக்கு உள்ளே இருந்தது, 16ம் நூற்றாண்டில் கிரேக்க புதிய ஏற்படு பைபிள் கதைகளை ஆங்கிலத்தில் மொழி பெயர்த்த வில்லிஅம் திண்டேல் சர்ச் மற்றும் கிறிஸ்துவ அரசால் சிலுவையில் அடைக்கப்பட்டு உயிரோடு எரித்துக் கொல்லப் பட்டார். பிறகு அவை 17ம் நூற்றாண்டில் கேஜேவெ எனும் ஜேம்ஸ் ராஜா பதிப்பு வந்த பின்னர் மக்கள் கையில் வந்தது, ஆனாலும் பைபிள் விமர்சனம் என்பது தொடங்க மேலும் நூறு ஆண்டிற்கும் அதிகம் ஆகின.

பைபிள்(விவிலியம்) சுவிசேஷப் புராணக் கதைகளை ஆராய்ந்த விவிலிய அறிஞர்களின் தேடலின் அடிப்படை- வரலாற்றில் முதல் நூற்றாண்டில் வாழ்ந்து ரோமன் மரணதண்டனையில் இறந்த ஏசு பற்றிய உண்மையான பேச்சு, போதனை வரலாற்று சம்பவங்கள் என்பதை சந்தேகம் இன்றி அடையாளம் காணவே ஆகும். 

விவிலிய அறிஞர்களின் தேடலில் - 19ம் நூற்றாண்டு இறுதியில் ஒரு பெரும் மதிப்புமிக்க அறிஞர் குழு- சுவிசேஷக் கதையின் ஏசு என்பது கட்டுக்கதை (Jesus Myth), ஏசு என ஒரு மனிதன் வாழவில்லை என அறிவித்தனர்.

அமெரிக்க, ஐரோப்பிய அரசை விடவும் அதிக பொருளாதார வலிமை கொண்ட சர்ச் கல்வி நிறுஙங்கள் - "ஏசு கட்டுக்கதை" என்ற சிந்தனையின் வேரை உடைக்க- எதிர்மறை தர்க்கக் கருத்துகளை பரப்பின. உதாரணமாக - ஏசு மரணதண்டனையில் இறந்து 40 வருடம் பின்பு இயற்றப்பட்ட மாற்கு -  கலிலேயாவைச் சேர்ந்த ஏசு, 90 மைல் நடந்து யூதேயாவிற்கு சென்று யோவான் ஸ்நானகனை ஏற்று பாவமன்னிப்பு ஞானஸ்நானம் பெற்றார் என்பது பெருமைக்கு உரியது இல்லை - கீழமை செய்வதே;  அதே போல ரோமன் மரண தண்டனையில் ஏசு இறந்தார் என்பதும். இது போலே சிலபல சுவிசேஷ கதை சம்பவங்களினை மழுப்பல் அறிஞர் பெரும் ஆரவாரத்துடன் பரப்ப, அவற்றை பன்னாட்டு பல்கலைக் கழக விவிலிய அறிஞர்கள் பல நூறு கட்டுரை மூலம் விவாதிக்க கடைசில்யில் எழுந்த கருத்து ஒற்றுமை - மேலே சொன்ன 2 சம்பவம் தவிர எதுவும் நம்பிக்கைக்கு உரியவை இல்லை.

1. ரோமன் மரண தண்டனையில் ஏசு இறந்தார் 

2. கலிலேயாவைச் சேர்ந்த ஏசு, 90 மைல் நடந்து யூதேயாவிற்கு சென்று யோவான் ஸ்நானகனை ஏற்று பாவமன்னிப்பு ஞானஸ்நானம் பெற்றார்

இந்த இரண்டு சம்பவங்களிலும் மாற்கு கதையை தழுவி அடுத்த சுவிசேஷக் கதாசிரியர்கள்-  சேர்த்துள்ள வசனங்கள், மாற்றங்கள் - இந்த சங்கடமான சம்பவத்தின் வீர்யத்தை குறைக்கவே, அதாவது முதல் நூற்றாண்டிலேயே ஏசு பற்றிய உண்மைகளை மறைத்தும் மாற்றியும் திரிப்பது சுவிசேஷக் கதாசிரியர்களாலேயே செய்ய்ப் பட்டு உள்ளது என்பது உறுதி ஆகிறது 

இயேசு யூதர்களின் கிறிஸ்து தானே?

The Canonical Gospels

Figuring out the authorship of the four Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke and John) stands to be nearly impossible, because they are anonymous.

The Gospels as some finalized collection of the Story of Jesus aren't mentioned in Paul's Epistles. This means that they didn't exist at all while he was still alive; that is, until his death, which occurred approximately in 64-65 CE, to be more precise.[note 2]

The entity that later became the Catholic Church did not mention the Gospels by name or content until roughly 150 CE, when Justin Martyr mentions several unnamed writings on the life of Jesus, in his First Apology. The Gospels are not mentioned by name until 180 CE in Irenaeus of Lyons's book On Heresies.

Moreover neither Paleographic or carbon-14 is precise enough to demonstrate that there are any fragments before our earliest references to the Gospels. In fact, the often referenced c. 125 CE date for Rylands Library Papyrus P52Wikipedia comes from 1935; scholarship from 2005 suggests that a range of c. 125-225 CE is far more realistic[2] and the next oldest piece, Egerton Papyrus 2 (150-200 CE), is not even from any known Gospel.

The dating of Acts is similarly vague, with its traditional dating of 80-90 CE being some time after Paul was dead and gone,[3] and there are some who suggest the Luke-Acts we have was in response to Marcion of Sinope's teaching, meaning neither can be earlier than 120 CE.

Ignatius of Antioch (98 CE) does not mention any of the four Gospels, and nor do the two earliest writings of Paul's Church beyond his epistles, the First Epistle of Clement (c. 80-140 CE)[note 3] and the Didache (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles). On the other hand, none of the four Canonical Gospels mention each other, and neither Clement nor the Didache mention each other, and Ignatius does not mention Clement or the Didache.[4] This leads to the likely conclusion that though the words that would become the Synoptic Gospels were around in the 1st century, the associated names and traditional "authorship" do not come about till the 2nd and even 3rd century.

Gospel of Mark

The first written account of the life and ministry of Jesus, the Gospel of Mark, is generally thought to have been penned c. 65-80 CE[5], 30 or more years after Jesus was crucified by the Romans.

Tradition has it that the author of Mark was John Mark, an associate of Peter the Apostle. Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 323 CE) quotes Papias of Hierapolis (c. 130 CE) as hearing from one "presbyter" that Mark had written Peter's memoirs – something generally called "hearsay" in legalese, and not overly reliable, nearly 300 years after the fact. Also, several late second-century sources indirectly allude to John Mark's association with Peter. These claims have long been challenged by scholars, primarily because John Mark was a known Jew.

Setting "tradition" aside, modern linguistic scholarship on the Gospel actually suggests that Mark has two sources/authors, one dating from the 60s, and a second, possibly an editor, dating from the 80s or 90s[6] One passage often cited as being added is the passage about Jesus' resurrection (Mark 16:1-8), suggesting that the original author of Mark may have been part of a church that had not yet invented the Resurrection Story.[7][8][9] However, this remains a topic of debate for exegetes and scholars.[10] The author of Mark has long been seen as a collector and compiler of stories and theological ideas.[9] Biblical scholars generally state that the author of Mark had not seen or heard his stories directly, but was compelled to include legend, rumor, and history in his work.[7][8][9][11] It is fairly well accepted among historians and Biblical scholars that the errors regarding Judean geography and customs, as well as the author's need to explain Jewish law and ideas, indicate the author of Mark was not a low- or middle-class Judean Jew.[7][9]

The language, theology, and style of Mark suggest that Mark was written for the gentile, not for practicing Jews.[7][11][9]

Some more extreme theories suggest the Gospel of Mark's intention was solely to write a fictional allegory based on scripture,[12] possibly despite the absence of a historical Jesus.[13]

Gospel of Matthew

Like the other Canonical Gospels, the authorship of Matthew is unknown. The earliest known reference for the tradition of an author, Matthew, comes from Papias of Hierapolis, 120-140 CE. Quickly, the "Matthew" mentioned by Hierapolis came to be associated with "Matthew the tax collector".[9]

Matthew is traditionally (historically) understood to have been originally written in Hebrew, sometime between the 50s and 70s CE, then translated, edited, and added to by the actual author of Matthew sometime in the the last quarter of the 1st century; most scholars agree that Matthew was composed between 80 and 90 CE, with a range of possibility between 70 to 110 CE (a pre-70 date remains a minority view).[14][15] While there is linguistic evidence to support the idea that a few distinct passages in Matthew could have been written in Hebrew, linguistic markers in the Greek version of Matthew do not support this theory.[14]

In fact, as in A&E's Ancient Mysteries: Who Wrote the Bible? (the episode of that name, not the whole series and not Robert Beckford's show of the same name) by the supposed time of Jesus, Hebrew had effectively fallen out of favor as "even though their religious text were still in Hebrew their home language had become entirely Greek"

Joseph Blenkinsopp, Professor of Old Testament and Biblical Studies at the University of Notre Dame, states "If you couldn't speak Greek by say the time of early Christianity you couldn't get a job. You wouldn't get a good job. a professional job. You had to know Greek in addition to your own language. And so you were getting to a point where Jews… the Jewish community in say Egypt and large cities like Alexandria didn't know Hebrew anymore they only knew Greek. And so you need a Greek version in the synagogue."

We are then told of the Septuagint (3rd century BCE) and Rabbi David Wolpe, lecturer at the University of Judaism, explains why this was so important historically. So if Jews especially in the large cities didn't even know Hebrew, why in the name of sanity would anyone with a brain in their head write a Gospel in Hebrew for them? For instance, while Papal encyclicals are still written in Latin,[16] they are not only written in Latin and they're especially targeting a Catholic clergy which does know Latin and is able to spread the message further in the vernacular. Indeed, the example of the Catholic use of Latin, as its "learned lingua franca", is parallel to the status of Greek in the Roman Empire.

As to why the notion of Matthew being originally written in Hebrew crept in, it was likely because the early Church fathers either heard of a Jewish Gospel or read some version of what became the Gospel of Matthew with its strong emphasis on Jesus as the Jewish messiah and simply assumed that it must originally have been written in Hebrew. Back on Planet Reality if there ever had been a Jewish Gospel, odds are it would have been written in Greek, not Hebrew.

Biblical Scholars and linguists generally accept that Matthew is a compiled work from three different sources: Mark, the Q Document, and the religious "church" community the author of Matthew would have been part of. Based on the same language analysis, the author of Matthew was likely a highly-educated Jew who wrote in Greek, but with a Jewish worldview and schooled in Jewish law.[7][11] He and his community were on the edge of Jewish society, and his non-Pauline Christianity was in no way mainstream.[17] One alternative, if Q and the two-source hypothesis is discarded, is that Matthew was written as a "corrective" to Mark, exactly because Matthew and his community were dissatisfied with the insufficient Jewish theology and outright errors in depicting Jewish customs and law found in Mark, as well as Mark's general terseness, for instance its lack of a nativity story.

Gospel of Luke/Acts common authorship

See the main article on this topic: Luke the Evangelist

The Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were almost certainly written by the same person.[18] They bear significant similarities, both in terms of their theology and in terms of their language use and style; indeed, both books are dedicated to a certain "Theophilus" in Luke 1:3 and Acts 1:1 but there is no evidence of who this person was. In and around the era of Acts Theophilus was both a common name and an honorary title for the learned of a community.

The Book of Acts is very problematic, for the following reasons:

It is the only surviving text which describes the beginning of early Christianity in the Mediterranean World under Roman rule.

It is inaccurate and not always a reliable source, from a historical point of view.

Its main task is to represent Paul as the "hero" of the Christian movement.

It expresses mostly the opinions of gentile Christians (Greeks and Romans) against their own forerunners, the Jewish Christians.

Gospel of John and the Johannine question

What do we know about John? Very little. Interestingly, John was the last gospel to be written, yet the general consensus of scholars[note 4] is that it contains the only snippets (and they are very, very small snippets) of what might be actual eye witnesses to the events.[19] From literary and linguistic analysis, scholars today point to three different levels of writing in the text. The first is a second-person retelling of a witness's story (likely written well before the temple's destruction), the second level adds to that the Johannine theology, and the third edit levels it into the clear, accessible text it is today.

The authors, and there is little doubt it is many authors, of John are also responsible for the First, Second and Third Epistle of John, as well as the Book of Revelation. The Johannine community, and therefore the authors of John, is clearly Gnostic in theology, positing a non-human, divine Jesus who simply "wore the cloak of humanity" to bring his message (despite their Gnostic theology, it and the other Johannine texts remain part of the canon even after the Gnostic texts were purged in the 3rd century). The text also shows the community is clearly anti-Jewish.[7]