Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do we know when the Gospels were written?
DeclinetoState
Member (Idle past 6437 days)
Posts: 158
Joined: 01-16-2006


Message 1 of 123 (299943)
03-31-2006 9:23 PM


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.)

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Chronos, posted 03-31-2006 9:58 PM DeclinetoState has replied
 Message 5 by Phat, posted 04-01-2006 12:02 AM DeclinetoState has not replied
 Message 33 by 1.61803, posted 04-03-2006 4:52 AM DeclinetoState has not replied
 Message 42 by ramoss, posted 07-03-2006 8:00 PM DeclinetoState has not replied
 Message 45 by chapalot, posted 11-01-2006 11:54 AM DeclinetoState has not replied
 Message 49 by Equinox, posted 11-01-2006 1:25 PM DeclinetoState has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 123 (299945)
03-31-2006 9:29 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by pop, posted 01-03-2007 1:17 AM AdminJar has not replied

  
Chronos
Member (Idle past 6225 days)
Posts: 102
From: Macomb, Mi, USA
Joined: 10-23-2005


Message 3 of 123 (299952)
03-31-2006 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by DeclinetoState
03-31-2006 9:23 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DeclinetoState, posted 03-31-2006 9:23 PM DeclinetoState has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by ReverendDG, posted 03-31-2006 11:18 PM Chronos has not replied
 Message 7 by DeclinetoState, posted 04-01-2006 12:51 AM Chronos has not replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 4 of 123 (299956)
03-31-2006 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Chronos
03-31-2006 9:58 PM


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 right
since 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
This 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Chronos, posted 03-31-2006 9:58 PM Chronos has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Phat, posted 04-01-2006 12:08 AM ReverendDG has replied
 Message 16 by Brian, posted 04-01-2006 3:23 PM ReverendDG has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 5 of 123 (299964)
04-01-2006 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by DeclinetoState
03-31-2006 9:23 PM


Sacred Cows
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?
  • There is NO universal acceptance or agreement about who wrote the Gospels, how they were written, or when they were written. For me personally, the important issue is the zeitgeist
    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.
  • Again, there most definitely is no universal consensus. We folk will always argue, debate, and discuss this topic until the sacred cows come home!

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by DeclinetoState, posted 03-31-2006 9:23 PM DeclinetoState has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 12 by purpledawn, posted 04-01-2006 4:32 AM Phat has replied
     Message 116 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 6:27 PM Phat has not replied

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 18262
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 6 of 123 (299966)
    04-01-2006 12:08 AM
    Reply to: Message 4 by ReverendDG
    03-31-2006 11:18 PM


    Most of us are not likely to be convinced
    The Right Reverand DG writes:
    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 right
    since 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
    Or should I call you the Left Reverand DG?
  • Terms such as most likely... and most scholars believe... mean nothing to me. Its like my Mama used to tell me: If Most of the kids jumped off of a cliff, are you gonna do it? The issue is not what most of us believe since this is a faith/belief issue anyway.
    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

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 4 by ReverendDG, posted 03-31-2006 11:18 PM ReverendDG has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 10 by ReverendDG, posted 04-01-2006 2:57 AM Phat has not replied
     Message 31 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 04-03-2006 12:44 AM Phat has replied

      
    DeclinetoState
    Member (Idle past 6437 days)
    Posts: 158
    Joined: 01-16-2006


    Message 7 of 123 (299977)
    04-01-2006 12:51 AM
    Reply to: Message 3 by Chronos
    03-31-2006 9:58 PM


    Internet sources
    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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 3 by Chronos, posted 03-31-2006 9:58 PM Chronos has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 8 by Phat, posted 04-01-2006 1:23 AM DeclinetoState has not replied
     Message 11 by purpledawn, posted 04-01-2006 4:25 AM DeclinetoState has not replied

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 18262
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 8 of 123 (299983)
    04-01-2006 1:23 AM
    Reply to: Message 7 by DeclinetoState
    04-01-2006 12:51 AM


    Re: Internet sources
    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:
    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...
    Thus it is the debate between critical empirical scholars and traditionalists who have never trusted their own sources of beliefs.
    edit for missing link
    This message has been edited by Phat, 03-31-2006 11:27 PM

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 7 by DeclinetoState, posted 04-01-2006 12:51 AM DeclinetoState has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 9 by lfen, posted 04-01-2006 1:52 AM Phat has not replied

      
    lfen
    Member (Idle past 4677 days)
    Posts: 2189
    From: Oregon
    Joined: 06-24-2004


    Message 9 of 123 (299988)
    04-01-2006 1:52 AM
    Reply to: Message 8 by Phat
    04-01-2006 1:23 AM


    Re: Internet sources
    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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by Phat, posted 04-01-2006 1:23 AM Phat has not replied

      
    ReverendDG
    Member (Idle past 4110 days)
    Posts: 1119
    From: Topeka,kansas
    Joined: 06-06-2005


    Message 10 of 123 (299992)
    04-01-2006 2:57 AM
    Reply to: Message 6 by Phat
    04-01-2006 12:08 AM


    Re: Most of us are not likely to be convinced
    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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 6 by Phat, posted 04-01-2006 12:08 AM Phat has not replied

      
    purpledawn
    Member (Idle past 3457 days)
    Posts: 4453
    From: Indiana
    Joined: 04-25-2004


    Message 11 of 123 (299995)
    04-01-2006 4:25 AM
    Reply to: Message 7 by DeclinetoState
    04-01-2006 12:51 AM


    Fundamentalists vs skeptics
    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).
    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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 7 by DeclinetoState, posted 04-01-2006 12:51 AM DeclinetoState has not replied

      
    purpledawn
    Member (Idle past 3457 days)
    Posts: 4453
    From: Indiana
    Joined: 04-25-2004


    Message 12 of 123 (299997)
    04-01-2006 4:32 AM
    Reply to: Message 5 by Phat
    04-01-2006 12:02 AM


    Zeitqeist
    quote:
    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.
    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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 5 by Phat, posted 04-01-2006 12:02 AM Phat has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 14 by Phat, posted 04-01-2006 9:31 AM purpledawn has not replied

      
    ramoss
    Member (Idle past 612 days)
    Posts: 3228
    Joined: 08-11-2004


    Message 13 of 123 (300019)
    04-01-2006 9:24 AM


    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 earliest
    of 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.

    Replies to this message:
     Message 15 by Rainman2, posted 04-01-2006 3:14 PM ramoss has not replied
     Message 30 by tsig, posted 04-02-2006 9:16 PM ramoss has not replied

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 18262
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 14 of 123 (300022)
    04-01-2006 9:31 AM
    Reply to: Message 12 by purpledawn
    04-01-2006 4:32 AM


    Re: Zeitqeist
    purpledawn writes:
    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?
    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.
    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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 12 by purpledawn, posted 04-01-2006 4:32 AM purpledawn has not replied

      
    Rainman2
    Inactive Member


    Message 15 of 123 (300092)
    04-01-2006 3:14 PM
    Reply to: Message 13 by ramoss
    04-01-2006 9:24 AM


    Mark13
    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?"

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 13 by ramoss, posted 04-01-2006 9:24 AM ramoss has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 19 by randman, posted 04-01-2006 11:11 PM Rainman2 has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024