|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How do we know when the Gospels were written? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DeclinetoState Member (Idle past 6466 days) Posts: 158 Joined: |
Most scholars--probably even fundamentalists--agree that the Gospels were written several decades after the time they purport to cover. But what is the basis for these beliefs? Is it the apparent errors, contradictions, and other inconsistencies; or is it the language the Gospel writers used, frequently alluding to events that happened much later? Is it universally accepted that the Gospels were written near the end of the first century A.D. (or even later), probably after the Pauline and other Epistles were written?
(I suppose this should go into the Accuracy/Inerrancy forum, unless there's a better fit somewhere else.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chronos Member (Idle past 6253 days) Posts: 102 From: Macomb, Mi, USA Joined: |
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/gospeldate.html
http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/When.html There's a few resources for ya'. I don't have much useful information of my own to add. I will say that it's amazing how Jesus managed to predict things (destruction of temple) that happened before the gospels were written.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4138 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
I will say that it's amazing how Jesus managed to predict things (destruction of temple) that happened before the gospels were written.
its only amazing if jesus really did say that, most likely since it was written after the temple was destroyed it was just put in there to make jesus right, ie: the temple was destroyed, jesus said it would be, jesus was rightsince we can't ask jesus (unless we believe) its kind of pointless since we believe he was right anyway most scholars believe the author of mark or mathew wasn't even from israel, but a roman jew, he had no clue where some of the cities were, one city he puts on the other side of jersualam one of the other ways we can tell that the gospels were written long after the events is the anarchisms, that creep into the writingsThis message has been edited by ReverendDG, 03-31-2006 11:19 PM This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 03-31-2006 11:23 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
DTS writes: Most scholars--probably even fundamentalists--agree that the Gospels were written several decades after the time they purport to cover. But what is the basis for these beliefs? Is it the apparent errors, contradictions, and other inconsistencies; or is it the language the Gospel writers used, frequently alluding to events that happened much later? Is it universally accepted that the Gospels were written near the end of the first century A.D. (or even later), probably after the Pauline and other Epistles were written? of that time. From wiki: It is a term that refers to the ethos of a cohort of people, that spans one or more subsequent generations, who despite their diverse age and socio-economic background experience a certain worldview, which is prevalent at a particular period of socio-cultural progression. Zeitgeist is the experience of a dominant cultural climate that defines, particularly in Hegelian thinking, an era in the dialectical progression of a people or the world at large. We need to consider not only the mindset of the authors, whomever they were, whatever inspired them, and how the future mindsets of the councils who promoted and reinterpreted these worldviews played themselves out on the world stage.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
The Right Reverand DG writes: Or should I call you the Left Reverand DG?
its only amazing if jesus really did say that, most likely since it was written after the temple was destroyed it was just put in there to make jesus right, ie: the temple was destroyed, jesus said it would be, jesus was rightsince we can't ask jesus (unless we believe) its kind of pointless since we believe he was right anyway most scholars believe the author of mark or mathew wasn't even from israel, but a roman jew, he had no clue where some of the cities were, one city he puts on the other side of jersualam one of the other ways we can tell that the gospels were written long after the events is the anarchisms, that creep into the writings So tell me more about these mysterious anarchisms....and while you are at it, think about what I suggested regarding the zeitgeist surrounding this topic and around our conversations at large. Not all arguments need to be won or lost. Some discussions are just endless discussions and lobbing the ball back and forth on the tennis court. This message has been edited by Phat, 03-31-2006 10:10 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DeclinetoState Member (Idle past 6466 days) Posts: 158 Joined: |
quote:I looked at both of these sites, and they seem to both be written from a skeptic's standpoint. The problem with that is that fundamentalists will not be convinced by an argument from a skeptic or atheist, especially if the end result of the argument is to reinforce the godless heathen's beliefs (or lack thereof). Those concerns aside, however, the points raised are interesting. It's always good to have something specific to think about, rather than, "Well, the Gospels were written long after that, so it doesn't mean anything anyway," which is where I find some skeptics and critics appearing to come from. Never overestimate the intelligence of someone who thinks you're wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Robert J. Miller was one of the participants in The Jesus Seminar. This seminar has been lauded by liberal Christians and scorned by conservative Christians since its inception. I have not read all of what has been discussed, but I am a bit skeptical about these folks being inspired by the Holy Spirit. (In all fairness, my critics could say the same thing about me! )
Here is an excerpt from the link I provided:
westarinstitute writes: Thus it is the debate between critical empirical scholars and traditionalists who have never trusted their own sources of beliefs. In the aftermath of the controversy over Darwin's The Origin of Species (published in 1859) and the ensuing Scopes "monkey" trial in 1925, American biblical scholarship retreated into the closet. The fundamentalist mentality generated a climate of inquisition that made honest scholarly judgments dangerous. Numerous biblical scholars were subjected to heresy trials and suffered the loss of academic posts. They learned it was safer to keep their critical judgments private... edit for missing link This message has been edited by Phat, 03-31-2006 11:27 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4705 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
Thus it is the debate between critical empirical scholars and traditionalists who have never trusted their own sources of beliefs I'm not following you. "Thus it". What are you referring to by "it" and what is the "Thus"? The quote you cites makes it clear that the fundamentalist suppressed bibical scholarship but I don't see then how it follows the debate is "between critical scholars and traditionalists who have never trusted ..."
The fundamentalist mentality generated a climate of inquisition that made honest scholarly judgments dangerous. Numerous biblical scholars were subjected to heresy trials and suffered the loss of academic posts. They learned it was safer to keep their critical judgments private... Merle Hertzler on his web site pointed out that different Christians tend to hear the "Holy Spirit" or "God" affirming conflicting things based on what those individuals believe. So for example pacifist sects like the Mennonites tend to hear God denounce war while the more typical anti communist fundamentalist hear God approving of wars against the unbelievers. So it seems like the reports on the stands of the Holy Spirit are conflicted. lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4138 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
I guess i didn't make it clear in that sense, an adement believer could hardly believe that jesus wasn't right, so any arguments trying to convence them that he might not have said what the bible says he did wouldn't work.
when i said most scholars believe i mean where mark was really from, they believe he might be a roman jew, but they know he wasn't from israel, he put a city in the wrong spot, a jew from israel wouldn't do such a thing bleh i mispelled it, sigh let me say i retract that thing on anachronisms, they really didn't have such a huge space of change to gain any, thier were some in peoples thinking later,but the gospel authors were pretty close to not have strange things added as for endless discourse, i'm all for it This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 04-01-2006 02:58 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Odds are a fundamentalist isn't going to be convinced by anyone unless they are open to it and vice versa. But if the fundamentalist wants to try and convert skeptics, they need to reasonably address the questions that the skeptics present. So even though the hardcore fundamentalists may not be swayed by skeptic arguments, there are those sitting on the fence watching and deciding which way to jump. All an individual can do is weigh the evidence and go with what provides inner peace without harming others. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Still a bit fuzzy on the zeitqeist thing. I need a more practical application. So given what you have stated, do you feel any of that counters what the skeptic links provided as their evidence for the later writing of Mark? "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 640 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
A good source for looking at the analysis of the time frames can be found at Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers
For example, when it comes to dating mark (the acknowledged earliestof the synoptic gospels)
A general range of dating for the Gospel of Mark can be suggested with reference to the external evidence. If the tradition of Markan authorship is accepted, Irenaeus implies that the Gospel of Mark was written after the death of Peter, traditionally set in Rome c. 65 CE. If the tradition is not accepted, as Nineham states (op. cit., p. 41), "Those who are cautious about accepting the Papias tradition can hardly put the lower limit much earlier, for they must allow time for the oral tradition to have developed in the way described above." The terminus ad quem is set by the incorporation of Mark into the Gospel of Matthew and into the Gospel of Luke. If the Gospel of Matthew was written in the last two decades of the first century, the most probable range of dating for the Gospel of Mark is from 65 to 80 CE.
This range can be further qualified by an examination of the internal evidence. Mark's "Little Apocalypse" in chapter 13 is usually regarded as speaking of the events of the First Jewish Revolt, which took place 66-70 CE. The events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple left a deep impression on the Jews of the time. Jerusalem and the Temple were the center of religious life for Palestinian Jews, and the war with the Romans had ravaged the countryside and left thousands dead. Thus, it is understandable that some would associate these horrible events with the end times. An exegesis of Mark 13 shows how the author's description corresponds with the calamities of the First Jewish Revolt.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
purpledawn writes: Im gonna have to read some more before having an opinion. Even then, Im not sure if I will be convinced of anything new. As a believer, I tend to be biased. So given what you have stated, do you feel any of that counters what the skeptic links provided as their evidence for the later writing of Mark? Perhaps I should pray. Skeptics sharpen us. Its like Ali and Frazier. Joe made Muhammed a better fighter. (add by edit) I have read a lot of what the apologists have to say, which is why I may be biased. I suppose that I should have more guts so as to critically examine my faith. This message has been edited by Phat, 04-01-2006 07:36 AM Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rainman2 Inactive Member |
I don't think Mark 13 is already fufilled. Because for one thing it mentions the "abomination of desolation" spoken of by Daniel in chapters 11-12 where it says the vision is for the "end of the days". Also it mentions the resurection (Dan12:2). Also it becomes more clear in Matthew ch.24 where it specifically says that the disciples were asking
"...when shall these things be and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024