Earlier dates for the Gospels?

[mercyalways]

Who Wrote the Gospels and When? | Fr. Dwight Longenecker

The other day I indulged in a bit of a rant against the mainstream Bible scholars who have made an industry of de-bunking the gospels and trying to show them to be late compositions written by anonymous authors to add mythological magical details to the story of Jesus the peasant preacher from...

dwightlongenecker.com

Fr. Longenecker’s article points out that agnostic scholars like Bart Erhman insist all the gospels were written after the destruction of Jerusalem (70 AD) because Jesus predicted the destruction and "Stories of miracles must be untrue because miracles can’t happen.”

"While clinging to this fixed date they ignore the other date of 65 AD which is the martyrdom of Peter and Paul in Rome. … This date is important because at the end of the Acts of the Apostles–which was written by St Luke–St Paul is still alive. If he had been martyred St Luke would most certainly have recorded it.

This therefore dates the composition of the Acts of the Apostles before 65 AD and if Acts was written before 65 AD and Luke’s gospel was written before Acts, this places the date for Luke’s gospel back to the early 60s or late 50s. If Luke used Mark’s gospel as a source–on which almost all scholars agree–then Mark’s gospel must be dated to the mid or early 50’s. If there was an earlier version of Matthew which was written in Hebrew or Aramaic–something multiple early fathers including St Jerome testify to–then that “proto-Matthew” must be dated to the late 40s or even earlier….in other words, but ten or fifteen years after the death and resurrection of Jesus."

A very clear summation of the alternative argument by orthodox scholars.

 

[Leferdion]

I read from a source that Mathew’s gospel was written 15 years after Jesus’ resurrection.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

In the book, “Eyewitness to Jesus,” Matthew D’Ancona and Carston Thiede , makes the claim that five fragments of the Gospel of Matthew are in the library at Magdalene College in Oxford England. The book includes pictures of the fragments. They claim that these fragments are from the original gospel written by Matthew in 35AD

 

[JimG]

Fr. Longenecker:

“What seemed obvious to me was that the Biblical scholars were working within a bubble. As I did the research for The Mystery of the Magi time and time again I would come across the most transparent mistakes by the Biblical scholars simply because they were ignorant about some other aspect of the area of research. They drew conclusions based on false premises, mistaken information, lack of research and lazy acceptance of earlier unproven theories. I didn’t fault them for their unbelief, their cynicism or even their career-minded pettiness–but on a remarkable combination of ignorance and arrogance.”

I think Fr, Longenecker is closer to the truth the modern scholars, who, as he notes, are working in a bubble of their own making.

 

[Dan_Defender]

This therefore dates the composition of the Acts of the Apostles before 65 AD and if Acts was written before 65 AD and Luke’s gospel was written before Acts, this places the date for Luke’s gospel back to the early 60s or late 50s.

Yes I would add that scholars also pointed to the use of St Luke’s word 'Asiarch" as a false title that never existed in the Roman Empire… until the archeological evidence proved them wrong and St Luke right.

 

[Gorgias]

Fr. Longenecker’s article points out that agnostic scholars like Bart Erhman insist all the gospels were written after the destruction of Jerusalem (70 AD) because Jesus predicted the destruction and "Stories of miracles must be untrue because miracles can’t happen.”

LOL! I just got beaten up around here, a week or two ago, for pointing out exactly the same thing.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Same with the Bethesda pool.

 

[billsherman]

Fr. Longenecker’s article points out that agnostic scholars like Bart Erhman insist all the gospels were written after the destruction of Jerusalem (70 AD) because Jesus predicted the destruction and "Stories of miracles must be untrue because miracles can’t happen.”

Catholic scholars thing the same. In fact, the introduction to my Bible says exactly that.

The reasons for the dating go well beyond the destruction of Jerusalem. I highly suggest you read James Dunn’s “Christianity in the Making” (esp. vols II & III) for a deeper understanding of the - broadly agreed upon - dating.

Miracles are difficult for historians because there is no way to get historical evidence of the supernatural. At best, historians can prove that people believed a miracle occurred. But to actually prove a miracle occurred using the historical method is not possible (nor can it disprove one).

 

[mercyalways]

Catholic scholars thing the same. … I highly suggest you read James Dunn’s “Christianity in the Making” (esp. vols II & III) for a deeper understanding of the - broadly agreed upon - dating.

Sorry, but Dunn’s books are what, 25 years old? Much of what he wrote has subsequently been overturned. This is especially true in connection with Gospel dating.

Recent Catholic scholars have tended to argue in favor of earlier dates, as for example, Brant Pitre’s The Case for Jesus. This would be an excellent book to start with if examining the Gospels, and Pitre, a fine scholar, demolishes late dating arguments.

 

[billsherman]

Much of what he wrote has subsequently been overturned.

Not by historians.

I know that there has been a strong push for generations of apologists to push for earlier dates. I guess the reason is to try and “prove” historians wrong, but I don’t understand why that would possibly matter.

Believe what you want, no skin off my back. But if you want to know what historians think, it is almost universal that the traditional “late” dates are accepted. The evidence for earlier dates just isn’t there, and that’s what historians require.

 

[adamhovey1988]

I believe the Gospels were written earlier.
I don’t hold to Markan priority, either
“It’s the shortest”
Is not a great excuse.

 

[historyfan81]

one of the arguments for matthew and mark after post early 70s is that since jesus acurretly predicted the destruction of the temple therefore the gosples most have taken after it which has a lot of problems.
as none of them directly mention the destrucion of the temple when the gospels do mention pass predictions they mentioned they would happend example when meeting judas they say he would betray him or where jesus said rise this temple jhon says what he meant.

also matthew is writting to the jewish auidience and makes no mention to tribulation to or overcoming the suffering that you would except ,also many of his details could only be understood by people still centered in jerusalem example the field where judas killed himself or the guard of the tomb also keywitness in many times where told but some times hiiden example in mark he says a follower of jesus he cut off the ear of soldiers he is left him anonymous as the sanhederin could still try him

but jhon tells us its peter because it was already after in the romans burn the temple down .

an argument for early luke is is that acts ends with paul arriving in rome saying he stayed there for 2 years its agreed that paul arrived in 60 ad due to the mention of change of procurator of felix to festus in 59 ad and he sent him to rome , so acts must have been completed in 62 ad other wise why would luke not said that he would have been realised so there is a possibilty that acts ended before the trail.

in the start luke says that this is second book so his gospels would have been written before acts and before 62 ad .

 

[Hodos]

The basic presupposition of those who argue for later dating of the Gospels, and for that matter argue for later dates and multiple authors for books such as Daniel, Isaiah, etc., is that God doesn’t exist, therefore prophecy which predicts future events can’t happen. However, when you set that assertion aside, there is no reason why warnings such as are found in Matthew 24 cannot have been included in a pre-70 document. The idea that Ehrman and others advance is that the reason this prophecy was included is either to appear to make Jesus a prophet, or to confirm that Jesus’ prophecy came true. To them, these are the only plausible explanations. However, one other explanation that they don’t consider can also be offered. Namely that the prophecies surrounding the destruction of the Temple and city of Jerusalem are of such a shocking nature that the apostles wanted to be sure that this was passed down to later generations as a means of warning them of what they surely believed would actually happen. This explanation fits in much better given that none of the synoptic gospels try to present positive statements that the prophecy came true in their day, and that Acts was completed apparently before the second imprisonment and execution of Paul.

 

[mercyalways]

Not by historians.

I know that there has been a strong push for generations of apologists to push for earlier dates. I guess the reason is to try and “prove” historians wrong, but I don’t understand why that would possibly matter.

Sorry, but I disagree strongly. First, consider biblical scholars. Usually these are scholars who have gotten their PhD in Theology somewhere, usually learning basic Aramaic, Greek, the background and major arguments concerning the scriptures, early Christianity, etc. Almost all the people who publish books or articles on the subject have their PhDs in Theology.

For example, in an earlier thread you mentioned the agnostic scholar Bart Erhman. He has his doctorate in Theology. The atheist Elaine Pagels, a biblical scholar who inspired Erhman (okay he copied her arguments) who has published many books trying to exterminate Christianity. Another biblical scholar with a degree in Theology. Atheist Karen King of Harvard is another example, with her degree in Theology, I believe. (She recently was involved in the scandal of trying to promote a fragment that mentioned a wife of Jesus, which turned out to be a utter fraud, created by - I swear I am not making this up - a pornographer. The book *Veritas tells the tale).

You mentioned James Dunn. I believe he also got his degree in Theology.

Yes, there are scholars with degrees in History who write articles about the subject, but they are few and far between, and their arguments are as mixed about dating as are those who got their degrees in religion

 

[Wampa]

Atheist Karen King of Harvard is another example, with her degree in Theology, I believe. (She recently was involved in the scandal of trying to promote a fragment that mentioned a wife of Jesus, which turned out to be a utter fraud, created by - I swear I am not making this up - a pornographer. The book * Veritas tells the tale).

That is indeed an interesting tale. While the book came out this August, it’s based on the author’s 2016 Atlantic article - a long but fascinating read:

The Unbelievable Tale of Jesus’s Wife

A hotly contested, supposedly ancient manuscript suggests Christ was married. But believing its origin story—a real-life Da Vinci Code, involving a Harvard professor, a onetime Florida pornographer, and an escape from East Germany—requires a big leap of faith.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[billsherman]

Atheist Karen King of Harvard

I’m almost certain she isn’t an atheist. She likes to keep her religious views private, so we should respect that.

She was also not involved in the fraud - she was duped. She was a victim, not a perpetrator.

 

[mercyalways]

She was also not involved in the fraud - she was duped. She was a victim, not a perpetrator.

A victim?

The papyrus fragment indicating Jesus may have had a wife was a poorly done fake. Yet King was so eager to undermine Christianity that, instead of properly vetting it, she promptly proclaimed it to the world at a conference in Rome. Gee, I wonder why she chose a conference in Rome.

The fragment wasn’t even produced by a famous antiquities forger, like Oded Golan, someone who could truly fool even experts, but by a pathetic pornographer in Florida.

King is a perfect example of bias in a biblical scholar. Everything she has written undermines or attacks Christianity, with no attempt at fairness.

I would call her an indoctrinated middlebrow rather than a true intellectual, relentlessly embracing every current fad. The early Christians were idiots compared to the brilliant, subtle Gnostics. Female sexuality repressed by the dreadful early Christians. You could write all of her articles and books yourself without consulting a single fact, just by rewriting newspaper headlines from the last ten years.

 

[billsherman]

Your slanders against Dr. King are unbecoming of a Christian.

She is an excellent scholar, who has no desire to undermine Christianity.

I’m not sure what you want from scholarship, but it appears to be confirmation of everything you already know to be true. That’s not how scholars work.

 

[yankeesouth]

I would call her an indoctrinated middlebrow rather than a true intellectual, relentlessly embracing every current fad. The early Christians were idiots compared to the brilliant, subtle Gnostics. Female sexuality repressed by the dreadful early Christians. You could write all of her articles and books yourself without consulting a single fact, just by rewriting newspaper headlines from the last ten years.

Exactly. The author from the Atlantic article…

I wanted to have readers buy into [the Gospel of Jesus’s Wife being real] in the same way that Karen King and her supporters did, because initially there was a lot to be excited about. I think in many ways you’re rooting for Karen King at the beginning and you’re rooting for this to be true, because it’s so phenomenal. It kind of confirms what a lot of us in our particular age feel about organized religion, which is a lot of the stuff that’s been handed down through the generations, it’s often terribly patriarchal, sometimes misogynistic. It’s not as inclusive as it should be.

Which makes you wonder if he had a liberal’s bias towards favoring King. Haven’t read the book.

 

[historyfan81]

as much as some ideas of the past really where sound dumb or discusting to us we cant change the past to make it sound better or worse yet lie about a the past of a movement that still exist for the case of trying to push your modern ideology to them if evidence shows up great but this ? its not only something that makes no sense but goes against the historical method its not even a unsubstantiated hypothesis its fraud