When were the gospels written?

[Free]

Sorry if I've touched one of your sore spots with my comment about scholars, Free.

But too bad.

You have seen what the 'scholars' say in those quotes above. If you can still spring to their defence in the face of that lot, then that's too bad as well.

You have quoted a few scholars, hardly the consensus of thousands. And I don't have a 'sore spot' with scholars. The fact that you disparage scholars and willfully dismiss what they have to say, largely without warrant, in favor of your own, personal theories, speaks volumes.

Whether the gospels were written during Jesus' ministry, which they weren't, or beginning around 70 AD is irrelevant to their divine inspiration, veracity, and authenticity. The only reason I can think that someone would want to date the gospels during the ministry of Jesus is that they think God is incapable of helping people to recall past events as they actually happened, undermining the gospels' inspiration. It also ignores the oral culture of the time and just how good they were at remembering things, something which is all but lost in the modern West. Not to mention some scholars think there was an earlier common source, now lost.

I have mentioned before that NT Wright stated that in order to progress in the 'church' - presumably the anglican church in his case, one had to subscribe to the 'Enlightenment Philosophy' which has as one of its cardinal precepts the idea that Jesus did not rise from the dead.

Those concepts and ideas are like a corroding cancer, which spreads.

That is my fear, and is why I wrote these things.

I would like to see the source for that quote from N.T. Wright. He most certainly believes that Jesus rose physically from the dead.

 

[Free]

Furthermore, some seem to take what scholars write over what the NT clearly reads.

And scholars don't know how to clearly read the Bible? What different opinions by scholars underscores is the difficulty in understanding the Bible.

 

[smaller]

I'm with Async on these matters. Yes, they were almost immediate recordings. And no, the scholars are off whack and off track.

A brother shared this little matter with me several years ago. I found the statement of Jesus interesting at first, ALMOST FUNNY!, but within that account is a far MORE interesting matter about 'the written Word.'

Luke 24:
13 And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs.
14 And they talked together of all these things which had happened.
15 And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.
16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.
17 And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad?
18 And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days?
19 And he said unto them, What things?

Don't you find that funny? I laugh everytime I read it. What things? Here the GOD OF ALL CREATION acts like HE DOESN'T HAVE A CLUE? Seriously, Jesus Himself was just CRUCIFIED and was the EXACT CENTER of these matters, yet says WHAT THINGS?

I'm laughing right now as I read this. But there is a vastly more important lesson here FROM Jesus about 'proper understandings' which Jesus Himself goes on to expound to these two gentlemen. In fact buried within the scripture set posted above there are also other showings which I will not expound on, but read on.

"And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:
20 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him.
21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.
22 Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre;
23 And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive.
24 And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not.

Now, these two men were certainly accounting certain facts at that point, but they did NOT have a full picture. So Jesus HIMSELF gives them a First Hand real time post resurrection education lesson:

He starts out even by INSULTING their ignorance! And He then 'reasons' with them.

25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

I'm going to surmise a couple of things here. There is a reason that Jesus insulted them by calling them fools and slow of heart. Those who understand "His Methodologies" will find this same pattern played out in the text from cover to cover.

Second, it is very unlikely that Jesus cracked out A SCROLL of the O.T. to educate these two guys, you know, being the LIVING WORD and all.

Third, it is absolutely LUDICROUS to think they did not scramble for a scroll of parchments to start writing down their lessons, so as to not forget. I mean seriously, God Himself comes to visit with you, gives you first hand lessons of all the prophets and you forget to WRITE IT DOWN?

I don't think so. Whatever the scholars have to say about these matters, the fact is that the entire GOSPEL expounding that Jesus not only wrote about HIMSELF in the O.T. was based upon the OLD TESTAMENT and the LAW and the PROPHETS to begin with.

And the lessons going forward from the Apostles are based exactly on that same ground, with HIS EYES post resurrection and with REVELATION knowledge applied.

To say these things were just conglomerated about at the far later dates is patent absurdity.

enjoy!

smaller

 

[Free]

I'm with Async on these matters. Yes, they were almost immediate recordings. And no, the scholars are off whack and off track.

Based on what? What texts have you actually studied and how many? How many historical records have you looked into? Such a position is mere speculation, nothing more.

A brother shared this little matter with me several years ago. I found the statement of Jesus interesting at first, ALMOST FUNNY!, but within that account is a far MORE interesting matter about 'the written Word.'

Luke 24:
13 And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs.
14 And they talked together of all these things which had happened.
15 And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.
16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.
17 And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad?
18 And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days?
19 And he said unto them, What things?

Don't you find that funny? I laugh everytime I read it. What things? Here the GOD OF ALL CREATION acts like HE DOESN'T HAVE A CLUE? Seriously, Jesus Himself was just CRUCIFIED and was the EXACT CENTER of these matters, yet says WHAT THINGS?

I'm laughing right now as I read this. But there is a vastly more important lesson here FROM Jesus about 'proper understandings' which Jesus Himself goes on to expound to these two gentlemen. In fact buried within the scripture set posted above there are also other showings which I will not expound on, but read on.

"And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:
20 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him.
21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.
22 Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre;
23 And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive.
24 And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not.

Now, these two men were certainly accounting certain facts at that point, but they did NOT have a full picture. So Jesus HIMSELF gives them a First Hand real time post resurrection education lesson:

He starts out even by INSULTING their ignorance! And He then 'reasons' with them.

25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

I'm going to surmise a couple of things here. There is a reason that Jesus insulted them by calling them fools and slow of heart. Those who understand "His Methodologies" will find this same pattern played out in the text from cover to cover.

Second, it is very unlikely that Jesus cracked out A SCROLL of the O.T. to educate these two guys, you know, being the LIVING WORD and all.

I don't see what any of this has to do with the dating of the gospels.

Third, it is absolutely LUDICROUS to think they did not scramble for a scroll of parchments to start writing down their lessons, so as to not forget. I mean seriously, God Himself comes to visit with you, gives you first hand lessons of all the prophets and you forget to WRITE IT DOWN?

Why would that be ludicrous?

I don't think so. Whatever the scholars have to say about these matters, the fact is that the entire GOSPEL expounding that Jesus not only wrote about HIMSELF in the O.T. was based upon the OLD TESTAMENT and the LAW and the PROPHETS to begin with.

And the lessons going forward from the Apostles are based exactly on that same ground, with HIS EYES post resurrection and with REVELATION knowledge applied.

Again, I don't see what this has to do with the dating of the gospels.

To say these things were just conglomerated about at the far later dates is patent absurdity.

So you think God is incapable of bringing to remembrance things that happened, or do you just think that an oral culture witnessing some of the greatest events in history would so easily forget?

And such a position casts into doubt anything that happened before the ministry of Jesus began because he clearly didn't have any disciples to write things down. :gah

 

[smaller]

Based on what? What texts have you actually studied and how many? How many historical records have you looked into? Such a position is mere speculation, nothing more.

Every jot and tittle of the Old Testament was by Divine Decree meticulously delivered and recorded. Any believer worth their salt takes their understandings from the foundation of the O.T.

All of that came LONG before the N.T.

I don't see what any of this has to do with the dating of the gospels.

From the time of the resurrection forward the Gospel has never changed. It already existed in the O.T. as delivered to Israel and was from that point forward that same 'information' has been 'broken' hand to hand and handed down by Apostles and by disciples. Jesus showed this in reality feeding the masses with bread and fish, but also showed the intentions of His Feeding in that action. Those who are spiritually fed will be fed from the O.T. and they will be done so to this day, by proper handling in disciples.

The principles of disciples and Apostles existed in the O.T. as well as their methodologies.

Why would that be ludicrous?

What? That those two men would not 'share' their information? Obviously that information was shared. I'd also say that it was recorded as well. Hand to hand is always how the Gospel has been shared, from the beginning. There are winners in those matters and there are losers.

Again, I don't see what this has to do with the dating of the gospels.

The Gospel came LONG before the N.T. That was kinda my point. The Gospel is in the O.T. and from there it was originated by God in the Prophets and from there recorded, not only in scroll by Law, but by the reality of Gods Workings with the people therein. God hasn't changed.

So you think God is incapable of bringing to remembrance things that happened, or do you just think that an oral culture witnessing some of the greatest events in history would so easily forget?

I have a great deal of respect as to delivery and intent of the Living Oracles delivered to Israel, through their lineage. It is from there that all understanding broke forth subsequently. Every recording of the N.T. bows to the Old as a priority. Jesus Himself was that Authority 'in them.'

And such a position casts into doubt anything that happened before the ministry of Jesus began because he clearly didn't have any disciples to write things down. :gah

I would maintain that the Gospel was delivered to Adam and Eve.

The Jews received the Written Word, the lively oracles, the Gospel and received so by God in Christ speaking, working and ministering in and through them and their physical lineage. Jesus showed this fact to the two men as previously shown.

Every handler has been handed to by their recordings, the recordings of the O.T.

As to datings, the scholars are always trying to go back and validate these matters as a matter of history in time. That entire methodology is faulted. People who believe don't do so on the basis of historical in time delivery. If they know their Word, they will see the marks of TRUTH in those who handle the original text of the Jews and the validity of any recording can be measured based on comparisons. This was in fact what the early church did as well in 'finally' establishing the true benchmarks of legitimate writings opposed to fanciful Gnostic nonsense writings. They did so because of the proliferation of nonsense.

The measures of their understandings were applied to the writings they THEN had, and were measurements of comparisons.

To this day one can read any persons writings and test them to The Words of the O.T. Law and Prophets, and measure the validity of their understandings to the O.T. foundations.

To say these are limited to historical in time studies or carbon dating or studies of history is not going to yield or prove much of anything.

We can know Paul's writings only by Revelation. Carbon dating or historical analysis will not provide much information other than what it is. I say, so what? What does that really have to do with anything? If Paul was a phony we'd still have to measure his writings/recordings and the validity of what was written to what was already written.

The Jewish Law and Prophets are the secure foundation. They are the people of The Word. And of course historical studies are 'naturally' going to try to disburse and dismember their writings based on historical in time validity as well.

That entire effort is and remains fruitless. I would maintain that were you to hear only an account of Adam and Eve verbally, with any amount of accuracy, the entire Gospel would spring forth just from that account.

Scripture has always been about O.T. writings AND The Power of God to bring understandings. Historical analysis will only yield what it is. It will speak NOTHING of the Power of God. God Himself still reasons with the hearts and minds of the handlers.

Galatians 3:8
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

Now, go find an historically valid recording of the scripture of Abraham if you want to use that as your measure.

lol with that effort.

Yet Paul had that in his understanding arsenal.

You will find a LIVING ACCOUNT of the Gospel every time you see a person bow his head and heart in humbleness before God.

God will even teach such The Gospel right out of His Own creation.

Record that. Find some truth in that piece of paper now or hundreds of years from now and seek therein some kind of validation.

Such efforts will remain useless. We are fortunate to have this written observation. What date it came is irrelevant as it is a SPIRITUAL FACT:

Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead;

Look up, look down, look all around. The Gospel is written right there by The Hand of the Creator Himself.

Do you see it is the only question.

s

 

[Free]

What? That those two men would not 'share' their information? Obviously that information was shared. I'd also say that it was recorded as well. Hand to hand is always how the Gospel has been shared, from the beginning. There are winners in those matters and there are losers.

Of course they shared their information, orally, and of course it was written down, but there is no evidence to suggest it was written down right then or soon after.

God will even teach such The Gospel right out of His Own creation.

Record that. Find some truth in that piece of paper now or hundreds of years from now and seek therein some kind of validation.

Such efforts will remain useless. We are fortunate to have this written observation. What date it came is irrelevant as it is a SPIRITUAL FACT:

Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead;

Look up, look down, look all around. The Gospel is written right there by The Hand of the Creator Himself.

Except that Romans 1:20 is clearly talking about what can be known about God (vs 19), not the Gospel.

I don't see what the rest of your post has to do with the dating of the gospels.

 

[smaller]

Of course they shared their information, orally, and of course it was written down,

Meticulously so.

but there is no evidence to suggest it was written down right then or soon after.

The Gospel was inscribed by Jesus Himself in their hearts, no different than what the O.T. ALREADY PROMISED in WRITING except as a Spiritual Reality by The Inscriber Himself.

Except that Romans 1:20 is clearly talking about what can be known about God (vs 19), not the Gospel.

And clearly you are trying to DIVIDE the 'Invisible Things of Him' including 'The Eternal GOD HEAD' from the creation.

Where do you get the idea that such a difference exists? Do you try to DIVIDE Jesus from God from His Spirit? Of course you don't because you know that to be a HERESY by the 'deliberation' of other men over Spiritual matters. Romans 1:20 says not one whit different.

I don't see what the rest of your post has to do with the dating of the gospels.

You may not even perceive where The Gospel is really written?

"Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us,"


Written with WHAT?!


"written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart."


This EPISTLE was WRITTEN by God in Christ, the ONLY One Able to make such inscriptions.


And yes, that WRITING in their hearts BROKE FORTH from the day His Spirit ALIGHTED upon His Disciples and Apostles.



Blind men will continue their futile historical efforts. Less power to them, as it is written.


enjoy!


smaller

 

[smaller]

God in Christ works no differently today.

The Spirit of Christ WILL SHOW every Heart Epistle that HE WRITES upon the SPIRITUAL REALITIES of the O.T.

Therein is The Living Gospel in the hearts of same so delivered and written upon within their hearts by our Lord.

Those who seek to be branded in the name of a flesh man are what they are.

s

 

[Free]

Meticulously so.

That's not what is in question here.

The Gospel was inscribed by Jesus Himself in their hearts, no different than what the O.T. ALREADY PROMISED in WRITING except as a Spiritual Reality by The Inscriber Himself.

This has nothing to do with when their experience was written down in the Gospels.

And clearly you are trying to DIVIDE the 'Invisible Things of Him' including 'The Eternal GOD HEAD' from the creation.

And clearly I am doing no such thing.

Where do you get the idea that such a difference exists? Do you try to DIVIDE Jesus from God from His Spirit? Of course you don't because you know that to be a HERESY by the 'deliberation' of other men over Spiritual matters. Romans 1:20 says not one whit different.

Romans 1:18-32 is about men who should have known about God, their creator, and worshiped him as such, but instead chose to worship creation. There is no gospel there.

And as such, that is off topic as this is about when the four canonical Gospels were written. So far there has only been speculation that they were written much earlier than dates generally agreed upon by most scholars, but no sufficient reason has been given as to why they could not have been written at those later times.

 

[smaller]

That's not what is in question here.

Of course it is. If you want to rigorously 'test' the historical accuracy of the writings, then that same test would apply MORE SO to the O.T. than the NEW.

Fortunately the history of the Jewish scribes and their tenacity to the accuracy of jots and tittles have maintained those records by rigorous rules and continual recitations. But they are still taken to have been 'handed down' from generation to generation.

This has nothing to do with when their experience was written down in the Gospels.


And clearly I am doing no such thing.


Romans 1:18-32 is about men who should have known about God, their creator, and worshiped him as such, but instead chose to worship creation. There is no gospel there.

Read that spiritual fact however you want to dissect it. The point will remain that Paul's 'methodology' was a comparison of spiritual matters to spiritual matters and was so from the O.T. writings, spiritually taught by The Spirit of Christ.

The 'arrival date' or 'validation date' from an historical/scientific examination would not make a whit of difference. The methods are the importance and the methods were immediately delivered, shared in writing and handed down from them to others, and eventually culled and codified. Even in those recordings were transpiring continual validations as they 'worked' their calling. Even the courses of Paul and John speak to various stages of spiritual maturities that they had to participate in as well, moving from spiritual childhood to spiritual adulthood. These too were recorded, handed down and shared.

And as such, that is off topic as this is about when the four canonical Gospels were written. So far there has only been speculation that they were written much earlier than dates generally agreed upon by most scholars, but no sufficient reason has been given as to why they could not have been written at those later times.

The historical facts of JUDAS were recorded long before Judas hit the face of the earth. Do you think that some form of history or science could have PROVEN THAT before it happened? Yet there it is, as it WAS WRITTEN and before Judas ever even arrived.

The 'activity' of all of those engaged with Christ transpired in writing immediately. But there will remain other facts of them buried into the O.T. text as well. John the Baptist was written of before his arrival. Jesus too. Do you think that if there were historical or scientific measures available before these things actually happened they could have proven anything using those methods? lol

I have no doubt that these matters as written teachings were shared in writing and handed down as such immediately.

History will only be able to discover what they 'are able' to discover.

Having to have an actual document by any of the early writers is perhaps part of the lesson of moving past that effort as it is NOT going to happen, and perhaps intentionally so.

An actual document to be proven to have come from any of them would be literally and critically scientifically IMPOSSIBLE to prove.

History from our perspective today is not able to make those kinds of determinations nor will they be able. And because they are not able they will only prove their inabilities and then, their abilities to NOT PROVE is what they prove and promote.

And even if they did have an actual document written by Paul or John himself, what would change?

They couldn't prove it EVEN IF THEY HAD IT.

One would still end up having to measure their engagements as Jesus did and taught, to the Old Testament writing.

And those documents also were done hand to hand over generations. No different than how the N.T. was obtained.

The only thing that science and history can prove is that they cannot prove.

enjoy!

smaller

 

[Drew]

From wikipedia (obviously, I cannot vouch for the source):

Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Scholars variously assess the majority (though not the consensus) view as follows:

• Mark: c. 68–73, c 65-70
• Matthew: c. 70–100, c 80-85.
• Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85, c 80-85.
• John: c 90-100, c. 90–110,The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

 

[theLords]

Watch the personal attacks, or infractions will follow.

 

[Webb]

Hi Free--Your post # 22 which was directed to me; The meaning of your 2nd sentence is not clear to me.

 

[Free]

Hi Free--Your post # 22 which was directed to me; The meaning of your 2nd sentence is not clear to me.

"What different opinions by scholars underscores is the difficulty in understanding the Bible."

What I mean is that the fact that scholars can come to different conclusions regarding the meanings of words and passages, the dating of the Bible, etc., simply shows just how difficult it can be to understand Scripture, especially for the lay person.

My point being, to just say that "some seem to take what scholars write over what the NT clearly reads," seems to me to ignore that scholars not only read the NT just as well as any of us, they have knowledge and tools to understand significantly more. So we simply cannot dismiss what they have to say, especially since we all bring certain biases and preconceived ideas to the text as we read. One could even argue that it is practically impossible to "clearly read" the NT. Besides, true and proper biblical understanding does not come from just reading.

I would also suggest, as I have done in the past, that scholars are are gifted by God for what they do, and as such, many are given to the Church as teachers. To not listen to them is to not accept them as teachers appointed by God.

 

[Danus]

Danus

Reading the higher critical stuff in my early days nearly caused me to let go of the whole lot. I put the stuff down, very thankfully, and only now can I look at their material with a critical eye and see their assumptions, premises and prejudices clearly displayed.

I would like any readers of these posts to come to an understanding of the seriousness of the damage the 'scholars' can do. They are in high positions in the universities, and doubtless the seminaries and theological colleges.

They have bred and will breed generations of people who will become pastors and leaders, and who doubt the inspiration and dependability of the NT, and the OT as well.

I have mentioned before that NT Wright stated that in order to progress in the 'church' - presumably the anglican church in his case, one had to subscribe to the 'Enlightenment Philosophy' which has as one of its cardinal precepts the idea that Jesus did not rise from the dead.

Those concepts and ideas are like a corroding cancer, which spreads.

That is my fear, and is why I wrote these things.

It's an understandable fear, but don't discount others and their ability to see beyond to what matters.

Look, we have tons of people out there who say stuff because they are convinced what they are saying is correct, and many have their own evidence to back it up, but that has never stopped truth, or even hindered it.

God's ultimate truth will prevale. It always has and any attempt to stop it, stamp it out, or wipe it away has failed, and has done nothing more than strengthen his truth. That's the beauty of God's word.

We all go "sideways" sometimes while watching lies we can't stop take form. We all go down dead end roads. to fight it on behalf of God. Maybe we are foolish for it, surly, but we are stronger for it as well. In the end we are corrected by God, and not by men. I think if we seek the truth and speak the truth, we've done what God would have of us regarding the truth.

My faith does not rest on when, or how the bible was written. Now I can conger up all sorts of possibilities in that statement and be labeled a fool, but the fact is there is nothing contrary as yet to be proven to make a fool of my faith, or anyone else's. That's a big part of why it's called FAITH.

 

[Sparkey]

The 6th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States guarantees that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to confront and be confronted with the witnesses that accuse him. This portion of the Constitution is called the "Confrontation Clause". The right to confront one’s accusers dates back to at least ancient Roman times. In approximately A.D. 50, a Roman Governor named Festus explained to King Agrippa that “it was not the custom of the Romans to give up anyone before the accused met the accusers face-to-face and had opportunity to make his defense concerning the charge against him.”

At the earliest, Acts cannot have been written prior to the firm chronological marker recorded in the book - Festus's appointment as procurator. Coins fix the dates of Roman rulers. See: Porcius Festus (59-62 CE) Coins

I've read elsewhere that it is commonly accepted that the Gospels were written after the Book of Acts but have not been able to discover any reason given for this belief. There does seem to be a split, two camps on the matter, if you will -- where those who believe in prophecy date the gospels earlier and the other side who state that since there is mention of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem the Gospels MUST have been written after.

My thought is that the latter group, they who wish to insist based on this reasoning, must also have concluded that Jesus did not state the temple would be destroyed and therefore the bible isn't the word of God. This conclusion is mine and it does not directly bear on when the books were written but only calls to question the reasoning of some "scholars" for saying such things.

Cordially,
Michael (Sparrowhawke)

 

[Asyncritus]

From wikipedia (obviously, I cannot vouch for the source):

Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Scholars variously assess the majority (though not the consensus) view as follows:

• Mark: c. 68–73, c 65-70
• Matthew: c. 70–100, c 80-85.
• Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85, c 80-85.
• John: c 90-100, c. 90–110,The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

And in so thinking, the 'scholars' establish quite clearly that they don't live in the real world.

As I said before, and this basic, simple, elementary, rudimentary point does not seem to occur to their monumental intellects: would you not write SOMETHING down about the most stupendous events in the history of the world AS AND WHEN they happened?

This list confirms my poor opinion of 'scholars' and their opinions. And if they can generate such rubbish about what is a very basic and uncomplicated matter, then why should I and you pay a great deal of attention to what they say about more significant matters?

Webb (and Michael) have quoted the scholarly opinion that the Acts could not have been written till somewhere about AD 59 because of Festus being in power.

Tell me, was writing invented when Festus came to power? Could nobody write previous to that? What was preventing Luke from writing down the events as he went along?

As it happens, I can produce considerable evidence that the gospels (going back to them) were written at the time the events did happen. And from the internal evidence of the books, not from the speculations and useless theorisings of the 'scholars'.

These people seem to think that because they haven't found manuscripts dating back to AD 33, then there couldn't have been any such.

Well, didn't Troy's remnants exist before Deissmann dug them up?

 

[Asyncritus]

"What different opinions by scholars underscores is the difficulty in understanding the Bible."

What I mean is that the fact that scholars can come to different conclusions regarding the meanings of words and passages, the dating of the Bible, etc., simply shows just how difficult it can be to understand Scripture, especially for the lay person.

This opinion of yours is very distressing Free.

You are abandoning your birthright of free thought and handing the keys of your kingdom over to 'scholars'. As I quoted a few posts back, some of them are intentionally pretty vile as far as inspiration is concerned..

Maybe not all - but when there are several great big dirty rotten apples on the top of the barrel, how are you going to tell how deep the rot has gone?

And why would you pin your confidence on the idea that they are all as pure as the driven snow?

If you were a gambling man, you'd lose your shirt on this one, that's for sure.

My point being, to just say that "some seem to take what scholars write over what the NT clearly reads," seems to me to ignore that scholars not only read the NT just as well as any of us, they have knowledge and tools to understand significantly more. So we simply cannot dismiss what they have to say, especially since we all bring certain biases and preconceived ideas to the text as we read. One could even argue that it is practically impossible to "clearly read" the NT. Besides, true and proper biblical understanding does not come from just reading.

My reading of them is that they spend their time reading and re-hashing what other 'scholars' have written, not in reading scripture.

Look at any major commentary written by a single scholar. Tell me, how can anyone produce 10 volumes (or more in the case of Barnes) of print, from his own personal study of the Word?

One lifetime would not be enough to do so.

So he reads, and rehashes others' opinions. And if those opinions are wrong, then we get a rehashed chunk of error. How can you discriminate between fact and fiction?

I depend on scholars for their translations of the Bible, since I don't know enough Greek and Hebrew to attempt to generate my own translations.

But I don't trust any single one or committee - and so I use the Online Bible and its 10 or so translations when I form my opinions. They can't ALL be wrong. Or so I suppose, anyway.

A translation has opinions in it - and that can't be avoided, but between 10 of them, an accurate idea of the meaning of the text is possible. So for that I'm grateful - but for no more than that.

I would also suggest, as I have done in the past, that scholars are are gifted by God for what they do, and as such, many are given to the Church as teachers. To not listen to them is to not accept them as teachers appointed by God.

You're not thinking clearly. Just read the following, and tell me if any of these would be allowed on this forum:

When the German Rationalism of the eighteenth century, in imitation of the English Deism of the seventeenth, had discarded the supernatural, the New Testament became the first object of a systematic attack.

Reimarus (1094-1768) assailed the motives of its writers and cast aspersions on the honesty of Jesus Himself.

J.S. Semler (1725-91) used the greatest latitude in discussing the origin and credibility of the sacred Scriptures, arguing that these subjects should be dealt with without regard to any Divine content.

Semler was the first to question the authenticity of N. T. books from a critical standpoint. His exegetical principles, if admitted, would largely destroy the authority of the Gospels.

Paulus (1761-1851), professor at Jena and Heidelberg, granted the genuineness of the Gospels, and their authors' honesty of purpose, but taught that in narrating the miraculous and supernatural the Apostles and Evangelists recorded their delusions, and that all the alleged superhuman occurrences are to be explained by merely natural causes.

You're a moderator. Now are they staying on the forum - or out on their ear? They're 'scholars', remember.

Teachers 'appointed by God' you say?

 

[jasoncran]

uh many books of the bible is written in like manner.

genesis is way after the account.moses wrote it by tradition and either shem and or noah told that story to abram. we dont know for sure its by faith.

 

[Asyncritus]

uh many books of the bible is written in like manner.

genesis is way after the account.moses wrote it by tradition and either shem and or noah told that story to abram. we dont know for sure its by faith.

Whatever makes you think so?

Don't you think Adam, Abel, Noah, Abraham and all the rest of them could write?

And if they could, why didn't they?

Have a look here: http://www.trueorigin.org/tablet.asp