Is it really necessary to date the NT that late?

[patrick457]

Very true! There’s also that risk. You might as well underestimate genuine artifact just because it’s found out of context.

Yes.

Going back to Mark, one blogger writes back in February:

It is really frustrating when people spill ‘news’ of a manuscript discovery to score a point for themselves (e.g., in a debate) but then can only say, ‘Trust me. I got my info from a ‘world-class paleographer; and oh, by the way, he’s entirely unbiased because he’s not a fundamentalist.’ Time will tell, but no-one should buy this until the manuscript has been cross-examined several times. In any case the existence of a manuscript is almost irrelevant anyway unless it has some new light to shed on the text history, and for what it’s worth, it’s incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to pin down a date within the first century on paleographical grounds: the line between the first and second centuries is very blurry. This is likely to be only of great concern to those obsessed with finding the autographa; others whose faith isn’t disrupted or confirmed by autographa will be less wakeful at night.

 

[Type_37]

Luke is the easiest to date. No scholar that I know of doubts that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles are works of the same author. The introductions and the style of writing point to that conclusion.
Acts records the history of the early Church,first focussing on Peter then later on Paul. The last third of Acts describes Paul’s journey to Rome to face court proceedings but finishes abruptly before the trial. This suggests that Acts was written in the AD 60’s prior to that event. The Gospel of Luke would probably precede it by a few years, maybe early sixties or late 50’s.

 

[yankee15]

I thought that Matthew D’ancona’s “Eyewitness to Jesus” was and excellent read on this subject. The Magdalen papyrus featuring four passages from Matthew’s gospel, are scrutinized and dated as early as the late 50’s. Because it was in codex format, who knows if scroll-types were recorded even earlier. Fragments of Mark’s gospel discovered at Qumran cave-7 would obviously date it pre-68 AD.

 

[patrick457]

I thought that Matthew D’ancona’s “Eyewitness to Jesus” was and excellent read on this subject. The Magdalen papyrus featuring four passages from Matthew’s gospel, are scrutinized and dated as early as the late 50’s. Because it was in codex format, who knows if scroll-types were recorded even earlier. Fragments of Mark’s gospel discovered at Qumran cave-7 would obviously date it pre-68 AD.

Welcome to CAF! I’d advise you to please read my earlier posts here.