How do we know when the Gospels were written?

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.)

quote:

---

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/gospeldate.html
http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/When.html

---

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.

There are numerous instances in the Gospels of the disciples and others taking Jesus' statements literally when he really meant them in a figurative or "spiritual" sense. After a while, one gets to thinking they were idiots. Is it possible that, even a generation later, at the time the Gospels were written (as well as afterward), they were still (wrongly) believing that Jesus preached a relatively imminent second coming in the flesh--when in fact he was only talking about a "spiritual" return?This might explain "prophecies" that were supposedly fulfilled, only not fulfilled, unless one takes a twisted look at whatever the prophecy was supposed to be.

Some have suggested that history has seen two antichrists, with a third yet to come. The first two were Napoleon and Hitler, with the third perhaps already alive today in the Middle East. The problem with all of this speculation is that it's based on interpretations of Nostradamus' cryptic predictions, written hundreds of years ago, often in rhymes or riddles.Similarly, the Old Testament "prophecies" quoted in the New Testament and elsewhere were often in fact poetic oracles or even songs (psalms), which could often be fulfilled in one or more different ways, the possibilities even being contradictory (so that no matter what happended, the "prophecy" was "fulfilled"). If the Gospels were written long (more than a year or two) after the time of Christ, then any claim that Jesus fulfilled an Old Testament prophecy has at least two strikes against it: the original prophecy itself is subject to interpretation; and the event that supposedly fulfilled the prophecy may not have in fact happened at all.This message has been edited by DeclinetoState, 04-06-2006 03:26 PM

You're right about one thing: antichrists, not (necessarily) Antichrist. I don't know where Nostradamus (assuming he's being correctly interpreted) got the idea of three. Maybe it's a counter to the three of the Christian Trinity.Here's a page with a comparison of Hitler and Napoleon, possibly two antichrists: http://campus.fortunecity.com/...92/contents/antichrist.html#Here is a place in the Bible where antichrists is used in the plural:

quote:

---

Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. (1John 2:18, ESV)

---

There are other places where antichrist is used in the singular, however.

---

Never overestimate the intelligence of someone who thinks you're wrong.