Evidence for the extremely early date of the Gospels

[Asyncritus]

With apologies for my long absence. I was away in South Africa and out of touch mostly, with the internet.

I promised earlier on, that I would provide good evidence that the gospels were written very early on, and by the people who saw the events take place.

Common sense

Part of that evidence is purely commonsensical, and is a vigorous rejection of the critics' folly in refusing to accept the idea the Jesus could have predicted the Fall of Jerusalem.

Those who reject the idea that there can be such a thing as a prophecy, are immediately backed into the corner which asserts that each gospel was necessarily post-AD 70.

Faithful people who accept the inspiration of scripture cannot go along with this nonsense - maybe 'evil' is a better word here. How Free and others can go along with the 'scholars' holding that post-AD70 point of view, is nothing short of a marvel to me.

Be that as it may, we now appeal to the common sense of readers, and ask the question: How could the first writings about the 2nd World War only be written in 1975 or later? The very thought is completely absurd.

Yet here we have the most stupendous events in the history of the world - the life of Christ, His death and Resurrection from the dead. Jesus died in AD 33 or thereabouts. Is it possible that nothing was written down till AD 73 or later? As above, the very thought is absurd.

So then, when were the gospels written? What would common sense lead us to expect?

When did they write?

First, I would expect that the disciples who could write, would at least have kept an accurate diary of the events. Matthew could write; John could write; Mark (or Peter certainly could).

Why then, would they not have kept diaries of some sort? They must have done.

Second, why didn't Jesus write a gospel? Are we sure that He didn't? He could write, and read very well. So why didn't He write something down?

Maybe He did. But His writings are there in the form of Matthew, Mark and John's gospels.

I have suggested before, and I believe the suggestion is probably original with me, that most of the forty days after the resurrection were spent with the writers of the gospels, supervising what they actually put down in writing.

Jesus knew that those books would be the greatest and most effective means of communicating His message to the planet, and so He took especial care to make sure that they contained the most critical materials the apostles would need.

The Synoptics

If that really so, and to my mind it represents the most logical scenario, the we have an easy explanation for the large amount of material common to the synoptic writers. He chose that material Himself and reinforced their memories.

John may have been the third written because of the comment: 21.24 This is the disciple which beareth witness of these things,[note the eyewitness claim!] and wrote these things: and we know that his witness is true.

Who are the 'we'? Clearly Matthew, Mark, Peter, and the other disciples who KNEW the facts and could testify to the truth of the record.

Again we note, many of them were wiped out by the persecutions that arose not much later, and that places John and the witnesses very, very near to the resurrection and ascension.

There was considerable urgency for the need to write. Jesus had warned them that they would be killed for His sake - and that was not long in coming, as the Acts show very clearly and unfortunately.

Luke

Luke is the exception here, and I believe that his gospel is the last to have been written. In fact, he says so in his prologue, mentioning thay 'many' had already written down their accounts. Three is many, especially books of this extraordinary quality. Matthew, Mark and John had already been written, and now we add Luke's account.

There are some historical considerations and probabilities that we must balance here.

The first is the amount of intimate detail concerning the annunciation to Mary.

She is most unlikely to have gone round blathering about what had happened - but if, as I suppose, Luke was her doctor, then it would be perfectly understandable if she told him all about it.

Now the probabilities. If Saul went round breathing out threatenings and murder as Luke says, then he must have murdered some people. Who?

The most prominent in the Christian movement. Like who? I suggest that Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, Mary, Martha and Lazarus were among the first for the chop. But what about Mary, Jesus' mother?

As the Jews saw her, she could easily be a major focus for the rebellion, and it is more than probable that she was also one of the first to go in the 'great persecution' that arose.

Therefore, Luke's writing must have been before that sorry event took place. Which pushes the gospel right back, practically to AD35 at the latest.

Luke's identity is clear - he is a doctor. But I would go further and suggest that he was a Samaritan doctor. Why?

Each of the other gospel writers has his own little signature somewhere. Matthew is 'the publican'. Mark is the young man who fled. John is 'the disciple who Jesus loved'. Where then is Luke's signature?

It's in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Luke is a doctor. The Samaritan is clearly a doctor who can handle severe trauma cases. And he is a Samaritan. Hence the suggestion.

Eyewitness evidence

If the gospels were written as early as I suggest, and by eyewitnesses of the events, then we would expect evidence that could ONLY have been given by eyewitnesses.

Evidence which forgers could not possibly have given 40 to 50 years later. There is such evidence, and I will now provide it for the benefit of readers.

 

[wayseer]

With apologies for my long absence. I was away in South Africa and out of touch mostly, with the internet.

I promised earlier on, that I would provide good evidence that the gospels were written very early on, and by the people who saw the events take place.

Part of that evidence is purely commonsensical, and is a vigorous rejection of the critics' folly in refusing to accept the idea the Jesus could have predicted the Fall of Jerusalem.

Unfortunately 'common sense' is in short supply.

Your assumption is that reference by any Jesus could only have meant the physical structure of the Temple. Such reference may have meant reference to 'structure' as a metaphor for 'belief systems' which were equally corroded.

Faithful people who accept the inspiration of scripture cannot go along with this nonsense - maybe 'evil' is a better word here. How Free and others can go along with the 'scholars' holding that post-AD70 point of view, is nothing short of a marvel to me.

Marvel if you will but such attitude does not change the facts.

Is it possible that nothing was written down till AD 73 or later?

There is any amount of evidence to indicate that there were texts in existence before the gospels were written - we just have any copy of them.

There is any amount of evidence that what we call the 'Gospels' were generally copied from other texts or oral tradition. One such text is know as Q. But, again we have no copy of that text.

So,to answer your concerns, Yes, there was texts in existence before the gospels were written.

First, I would expect that the disciples who could write, would at least have kept an accurate diary of the events. Matthew could write; John could write; Mark (or Peter certainly could).

You don't know that. In all probability they could not write. It is probably true that Jesus could not write - he could read we know but writing was a whole new ball game.

Why then, would they not have kept diaries of some sort? They must have done.

The disciples were not 21st century people - they did not carry diaries - they did 'carry' much at all because everything they carried they carried themselves.

Second, why didn't Jesus write a gospel? Are we sure that He didn't? He could write, and read very well. So why didn't He write something down?

Where is your evidence that Jesus could write?

I have suggested before, and I believe the suggestion is probably original with me, that most of the forty days after the resurrection were spent with the writers of the gospels, supervising what they actually put down in writing.

Evidence?

Each of the other gospel writers has his own little signature somewhere. Matthew is 'the publican'. Mark is the young man who fled. John is 'the disciple who Jesus loved'. Where then is Luke's signature?

The point is that people called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did not write the Gospels. In 1st century circles of influence no scribe would have the audacity to put his name to a text - such was not the done thing. What was done was to attribute any text to some respected mentor of the scribe.

 

[Asyncritus]

There are quite a number of assumptions and not many facts in your reply, which need to be challenged.

However, may I politely ask that you hold off the criticisms etc to provide me with an opportunity to present the evidence I refer to in full.

I will number the posts, so you can refer to them accurately.

That would be the wiser course of action, I think,and I will indicate when I'm finished.

Thank you in advance for your patience and consideration.

Asyncritus

 

[Asyncritus]

Post 1

John 2.6 Now there were six waterpots of stone set there after the Jews’ manner of purifying, containing two or three firkins apiece.
7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.

If the waterpots needed to be filled, then that indicates that they were either empty or at least, less than full.

Why were they thus?

It was the third day of the feast and:

Mr 7:3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
Mr 7:4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

So here is the explanation of why the waterpots needed to be filled. It was a long way into the feast, and much ritual washing had occurred.

But notice: Mark 7 is a long way away from John 2, and still corroborates the command Jesus gave. There is clearly no collusion between them, yet they tell the same story.

John was therefore at the feast, and SAW this happening. His witness is therefore EYEwitness, and the wine WAS miraculously provided.

A forger, 40 years later would have said: Take some of that water to the ruler of the feast. Filling the pots would not have occurred to him. This is eyewitness material.

 

[Asyncritus]

Post 2

Mt 26. 66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.
67 Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands,
68 Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?

Here is a curious thing. If they were spitting in His face, then that implies that the faces of those doing the spitting were very close to Jesus' face. He could therefore easily identify them, without having any need to 'prophesy'.

It is only when we read:

Lu 22:64 And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?

Matthew does not mention the blindfold, but plainly implies its existence.

He spoke the truth, and if Luke had not mentioned the blindfold, we would have been entitled to say that Matthew didn't know what he was talking about: in fact he was contradicting himself as indicated above.

A forger would have taken great care to make sure that the explanation was available.

But these men are not forgers. They spoke their truth fearlessly.

 

[Asyncritus]

Post 3

Matt.9. 9 ¶ And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.
10 And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.

Clearly, Matthew had a big feast, and invited his publican friends and fellow outcasts to the feast with Jesus.

Mk 2.14 And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him.
15 And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him.

But note the difference in the 2 descriptions.

Matthew, writing about the feast says it was in THE house - just as we would do, when we were talking about our own house.

Mark says, in HIS house - meaning Matthew's house.

That subtle difference speaks volumes. Both writers are speaking the truth, and describe the event in the most natural and artless way possible.

No forger could conceivably make such an insignificant truth mark and fail completely to draw our attention to it.

They were eyewitnesses.

 

[Asyncritus]

Post 4

Lk 9.10 ¶ And the apostles, when they were returned, declared unto him what things they had done. And he took them, and withdrew apart to a city called Bethsaida.

We then read of the feeding of five thousand which takes place near to Bethsaida.

Jn 6.5 Jesus therefore lifting up his eyes, and seeing that a great multitude cometh unto him, saith unto Philip, Whence are we to buy bread, that these may eat?
6 And this he said to prove him: for he himself knew what he would do.
7 Philip answered him, Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one may take a little.

No reason whatsoever is given for Jesus' asking Philip about where they are going to buy bread for the multitude to eat.

But earlier in John, we learn that

Philip was from Bethsaida, of the city of Andrew and Peter. Jn 1.44

Here is the reason why Philip was asked. It is reasonable for Jesus to ask him in particular, because, being from Bethsaida, he probably knew all the local restaurants and take-aways.

But see how we have had to piece together the details of the story from several different parts of at least 2 gospels.

Collusion is impossible.

They are all telling the very same story, and the variations, far from being evidence of ignorance of the events in question, furnish us with excellent reasons to believe that they ARE telling the truth, and that they were eyewitnesses of the event.

Which of course, means that a later date for the gospels is pure nonsense.

So the miraculous is also fact.

 

[wayseer]

John was therefore at the feast, and SAW this happening. His witness is therefore EYEwitness, and the wine WAS miraculously provided.

A forger, 40 years later would have said: Take some of that water to the ruler of the feast. Filling the pots would not have occurred to him. This is eyewitness material.

Only if you have , a priory, made that assumption.

 

[wayseer]

But these men are not forgers. They spoke their truth fearlessly.

There is a difference between forgery and speaking the truth.

 

[wayseer]

Both writers are speaking the truth

That they spoke the truth is not contested. What is contested is when the gospels were written.

 

[wayseer]

they were eyewitnesses of the event.

Read Luke 1 carefully. You might note the words ' ... were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitness ...'

The author of Luke is talking about two distinct groups of people - eyewitness and himself. The author of Luke was clearly not an eye witness.

If this is the best you can do then I am not interested in what might follow.

The salient point is - if you are to stand in contradiction to the bulk of scholars you have to come up with a pretty good argument. At the moment your argument is shallow and therefore unconvincing.

 

[Asyncritus]

Read Luke 1 carefully. You might note the words ' ... were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitness ...'

The author of Luke is talking about two distinct groups of people - eyewitness and himself. The author of Luke was clearly not an eye witness.

If this is the best you can do then I am not interested in what might follow.

The salient point is - if you are to stand in contradiction to the bulk of scholars you have to come up with a pretty good argument. At the moment your argument is shallow and therefore unconvincing.

OK.Goodbye.