Gospel Dates

  • Thread starter Thread starter RCA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
patg said:
I don’t think that is exactly correct. The church does state that the resurrection definitely occured and that you must believe it. But I doubt the church states that “according to the standards of scholarly historical analysis, the resurrection (or any other miracle) can be proven to have occured”.
Click to expand...
There are multiple standards when discussing scholarly historical analysis. If the standard presupposes a world view that miracles can’t happen in nature and thus can’t be historical, then you are right - the CC would not agree with that standard. If the standard is open minded, then the CC maintains the events in the Gospels far surpass the standard scholarly historical standard to certify the gospels as an ancient historical events.
I don’t see the connection. Miracles were often attributed to people in the ancient world in order to increase their stature in the eyes of readers. There is significant documentation that there were many Jewish holy men and women to whom the same miracles Jesus performed (and others) were attributed. So in reality, Jesus’ miracles tell us nothing about him except that the authors considered him to be a typical Jewish holy man.

Posthumously assigning extra accomplishments to a renowned person is a common practice throughout history, so common that it has been given a literary term: epic concentration. The Dominican theologian Edward Schillebeeckx cites a straightforward example in Matthew, where tax collectors confront Jesus and Peter about paying the Temple tax. They have no money. Jesus tells Peter to cast a line into the lake; the first fish he catches, he says, will have a coin in its mouth. The coin in the mouth of the fish, Schillebeeckx says, was a motif common in ancient folk literature: “Obviously, a fabulous motif is being employed here simply to say that should he need it, Jesus has everything readily available, because the Father is looking after him. No reader at that time would have taken the passage literally.”
Click to expand...
We know that some people, even today, claim miracles and supernatural powers. Most of these people are fakes. This does not prove that miracles can’t or haven’t happened.
 
Maranatha said:
We know that some people, even today, claim miracles and supernatural powers. Most of these people are fakes. This does not prove that miracles can’t or haven’t happened.
Click to expand...
Or that they *have *happened either…

Still, I still don’t see the connection you are trying to make between the miracles and the dates/authorship of the gospels?

I agree that the gospels say Jesus worked miracles. That was the universal opinion of his early followers, and it is undoubtedly what made him famous in his lifetime.

Actually, what the gospels say he performed were dynameis, “mighty deeds,” or semeia, “signs.” Signs of what? Signs of his status: that he was the one spoken of by Isaiah and Daniel, that here was the Son of Man, the eschatological prophet, who would herald the arrival of the new kingdom. However much scholars might dispute the idea that Jesus believed he was the prophet of the Last Days, there is no doubt that he is presented as such in the gospels. Whether or not he saw himself that way, that was certainly how the early church saw him.
 
patg said:
. Whether or not he saw himself that way, that was certainly how the early church saw him.
Click to expand...
I think this conversation is slipping a bit. What should we focus on–the authorship and dating of the Gospels, or the Historical Jesus, or something else?
Getting too far off subject or too general ruins the debate.
 
patg said:
Still, I still don’t see the connection you are trying to make between the miracles and the dates/authorship of the gospels?
Click to expand...
Let’s start with the Gospel of Mark. What date do you put on the Gospel and why?
 
It doesn’t make sense to say that Mark decided not to sign his name to his work on account of his humility. In a world of competing religious systems, and in a religious sytem of competing views of Christ, an author with direct access to eye witness sources, one who personally conversed and travelled with the apostles of Jesus themselves, would not hesitate to note that in his work. If the Gospel of Mark is a transcript of a speech given by Peter (as someone claimed) he would have attached Peter’s name to it.

It’s simple, the gospel of Mark is anonymous. It is not written to suggest any connection with eye witness accounts. Why would we then, look to historians nearly a century after its composition and take their statement that a companion of Jesus’ original disciples wrote the work at face value?
 
RCA said:
Hey everyone 😃

Can anyone provide information or links, on the most recent research into when the Gospels were written, especially Luke’s Gospel. Information on the synoptic problem would also be welcome.

Thanks in advance,
RCA
Click to expand...
I’m sure all the Gospels were written before 70AD since none mentioned the destruction of the temple explicitly only prophetically.
 
HailMary said:
I’m sure all the Gospels were written before 70AD since none mentioned the destruction of the temple explicitly only prophetically.
Click to expand...
John’s Gospel was written around 85-90 AD. His epistles were written around that same time. He also wrote Revelation, around 95 AD. He was an old man when he wrote his Gospel, epistles and the book of Revelation.

The other Gospels were written before 70 AD. Also, Luke wrote Acts before 70 AD, probably around 65 AD, because Paul is still alive and under house arrest when Acts ends.
 
lak611 said:
John’s Gospel was written around 85-90 AD. His epistles were written around that same time. He also wrote Revelation, around 95 AD. He was an old man when he wrote his Gospel, epistles and the book of Revelation.

The other Gospels were written before 70 AD. Also, Luke wrote Acts before 70 AD, probably around 65 AD, because Paul is still alive and under house arrest when Acts ends.
Click to expand...
Why? I gave my reason why I think none of the Gospels were written before 70 ad. Whats yours? 😃
 
HailMary said:
Why? I gave my reason why I think none of the Gospels were written before 70 ad. Whats yours? 😃
Click to expand...
The traditional dates are given in the introductory notes in my Douay-Rheims Bible. This is based on the teachings of the Early Church Fathers.
 
Luke and Matthew show clear knowledge of the destruction of the temple. They are, therefore, post 70. Since they are writing about events that occured sometime in 30 CE, of course this knowledge will be presented as prophecy.
The other Gospels were written before 70 AD. Also, Luke wrote Acts before 70 AD, probably around 65 AD, because Paul is still alive and under house arrest when Acts ends.
Click to expand...
Acts was trying showing that Paul had spread his ministry all the way to Rome. Just because it does not record his death does not mean it was written before hand. In addition, Luke-Acts obviously had no contact with Paul, it shows no knowledge of his letters and, at times, out right contradicts Paul’s own writings about his life.
 
Gnosis said:
Acts was trying showing that Paul had spread his ministry all the way to Rome. Just because it does not record his death does not mean it was written before hand. In addition, Luke-Acts obviously had no contact with Paul, it shows no knowledge of his letters and, at times, out right contradicts Paul’s own writings about his life.
Click to expand...
Luke and Paul are companions in Acts. Luke uses “we” in the passages where he is with Paul. And Paul mentions Luke in his letters. They clearly knew each other.
 
lak611 said:
The traditional dates are given in the introductory notes in my Douay-Rheims Bible. This is based on the teachings of the Early Church Fathers.
Click to expand...
Which ECFs? Any other references would be nice too.
 
Luke and Paul are companions in Acts. Luke uses “we” in the passages where he is with Paul. And Paul mentions Luke in his letters. They clearly knew each other.
Click to expand...
Obviously there was a Luke that Paul knew. Luke-Acts however, is anonymous and does not claim to be written by Luke. The author of the works includes the “we” passages quite possibly because they reflect a more direct source of which he had only a fragment. The author notes in Luke that he did his best to compile to sources (which he would not need to do if he knew Paul personally, he would simply record what Paul said about Jesus’ life) Note that they are only a tiny fragment of the story. If it was written by Luke who personally knew Paul he would have made that indication. Instead he leaves the work as anonymous.

The author of Luke however, clearly did not know Paul- he contradicts Paul’s own life and shows no knowledge of Paul’s letters.
 
lak611 said:
catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/May97/gospels.html
Click to expand...
St. Irenaeus, writing in 180, tells us that John lived until the reign of the Emperor Trajan, which began in 98. From this some have inferred that John wrote his Gospel in the 90s. But this inference is obviously fallacious. The majority of modern scholars do indeed date the Gospel in the 90s, but a growing number put it earlier, and Robinson mentions seventeen, including P. Gardner-Smith, R. M. Grant and Leon Morris, who favor a date before 70.
Click to expand...
This doesn’t support the post 70AD theory I think.

just a side note on “modern scholars”; most of these “modern scholars” from what I have read, believe that the Whore of Babylon is Rome - this is an indication that they do not understand the bible very well, since the argument that the Whore would be Jerusalem is much stronger (Idolatry is religious harlotry - and not to mention that Israel is called the harlot far more times than any other people). This being said, and the crazy commentaries that those people who use the Historical-Critical Method come up with, I don’t take those scholars very seriously.
 
Gnosis said:
Luke and Matthew show clear knowledge of the destruction of the temple. They are, therefore, post 70. Since they are writing about events that occured sometime in 30 CE, of course this knowledge will be presented as prophecy.

.
Click to expand...
Gnosis,

This will take you through it thoroughly:

** The Gospels are Historical**

THE UNFOLDING OF EVENTS
Undisputed dates in the list below are in bold type. The sequence of events concerning the Christian Community have been inserted, some tentatively, within this framework.

Year AD ** Event** The Resurrection. The leaders of the Jews persecute the first Christians. Saul/Paul is converted. Matthew composes his Hebrew gospel/ liturgy in Palestine. Matthews gospel is translated into Greek. King Herod Agrippa executes the Apostle James the Great. Peter escapes and flees to Rome. The other apostles spread out from Palestine. **44** **King Herod Agrippa dies.** **49** **Jews and Christians expelled from Rome following riots.** Luke writes his gospel for the Gentiles, partly based on Matthews gospel. First of Pauls epistles; some influenced by Matthews gospel. Paul imprisoned by Romans. A copy of Matthew’s Gospel taken to India. 54 Nero becomes emperor. The Apostle James the Less, bishop of Jerusalem, killed by stoning. The Christians are expelled from the Temple. Luke completes his Acts of the Apostles. Paul asks Timothy to join him on a mission to Spain. Paul released from prison. Peter ordains Linus, Cletus and Clement as assistant bishops. Peter endorses Lukes gospel by using it in a series of talks. Mark issues a first transcript of Peters talks. Peter approves Marks transcript. Used as a Gospel. Lukes gospel published as an authorised gospel. Acts issued with the authorisation of Paul and Peter. John writes twenty chapters of his Gospel. 64 July Rome devastated by fire.
 
65 Spring Nero commences persecution of Christians. Peter martyred. Linus replaces Peter as bishop of Rome. Mark issues second edition of Peter’s talks. 66 Jewish rebellion in Palestine. Paul goes to Spain. 68 early Jerusalem surrounded for first time by Romans. 68 June Suicide of Emperor Nero followed by civil strife. This leads to the Roman troops surrounding Jerusalem being withdrawn. Paul returns from Spain and visits Asia and Crete. Paul writes an epistle to the Hebrew Christians in Jerusalem. The Hebrew Christians flee from Jerusalem to Pella. Paul again imprisoned in Rome and then martyred. 69 Galba, Vitellius and Otho die trying to become emperors. 69 Vespasian becomes emperor and renews war in Palestine. 69 Romans surround Jerusalem for second time. Clement of Rome replies to Corinthians on behalf of Linus. 70 Aug Jerusalem, including its Temple, is destroyed. Linus dies (about 81). Cletus becomes bishop of Rome. ** 91** Domitian starts persecution. Cletus dies (about 92). Clement becomes bishop of Rome. Jewish leaders (about 96) hold a conference at Jamnia. Clement, bishop of Rome, exiled by Romans to the Crimea. John the Apostle (About 96) adds final chapter to his gospel. John the Apostle dies. 98 Trojan becomes emperor. About 101 Clement dies and Evaristus becomes bishop of Rome. About 130 Papias records that Mark wrote down Peter`s words.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top