When were the gospels written?

[Drew]

I've not seen any conclusive evidence to support the idea that the gospels were written hundreds of years after-the-fact, nor do I believe that they were fabricated to make it look like they were eye-witness accounts. Those scholars, no matter their qualifications, that say that the bible is composed of lies or deception are wrong.

1. I do not believe many scholars assert the gospels werer written hundreds of years after the fact. I believe the consensus is that they were written decades after the fact.

2. I, for one, am not talking about scholars who claim the Bible is "composed of lies and deception" - I am talking about the substantial body of believing Christian scholars who believe the gospels are truth, but were indeed written decades after the events they describe

Regarding laymen who know the truth even in the face of what scholarly opposition may allege: it is more than remarkable that our God chooses the low to better demonstrate His glory. Yes, even laymen can be given the truth.

Strawman. I never claimed that laymen cannot know the truth. What I did strongly imply is that, all other things being equal, it is much more likely that professional in domain X will be correct when that professional disagrees with a layman about something in domain X.

So tell us - why should we believe that the trained scholars are wrong and that the laymen are right?

Although the Holy Spirit has all the characteristics of God, He has specific roles and functions in our lives. In John 16:13, we see the Spirit of Truth as our guide: “Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak: and He will shew you things to come.”

In John 14:26, we learn that the Holy Spirit is our Counselor and teacher: “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”

In 1 Corinthians 3:16, we see that the Holy Spirit lives inside us: “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?”

1. At least partially begs the question by presuming that many, if not most, Christian scholars, who presumably have the Holy Spirit, are somehow in error, whereas the layman (Christian) is not.

2. Otherwise not a good argument - it is clear that many Christians are wrong many times about many things. So one simply cannot make the broad-brush implication that the Christian who believes that the gospels were written "early" is, in fact, correct.

 

[Drew]

You do what? Dispute the intimate connections between the Word and the Spirit of the Word?

What are you talking about?

You claimed this:

Scholars of the historical and scientific kind 'usually' have zero respect for the combination and totally ignore the later for the most part, which same the Living Word will point to for recognition of the vital missing Living component.

I challenged you to support this attribution of "zero respect" to scholars.

And now, for some mysterious (and clearly incorrect) reason, you seem to think that I am asserting something about the relation of the "Word" to the "Spirit of the Word"?

They travel together like a horse and carriage. There is always one missing mark in every Dr. and scholar. They never ever ever connect their sin to the devil. It's a typical malady in the supposed 'learned.'

This is a demonstrably false statement. I know of at least one scholar - and I am confident that there are many - who believe in a connection of sin to the devil.

NT Wright, a prominent and respected theologian, argues in great detail that the power of sin - as personified by the devil - is real and is at work in the world, instigating sin in human beings.

If you want to provide specific assertions, this is easily done. Central to NT Wright's theology is the reality of "dark powers" that lie behind the more "mundane" powers of the world - Ceasar, Pilate, Herod, etc.

So it is simply untrue to claim that no respected, believing scholars do not connect sin to the devil.

 

[smaller]

What are you talking about?

Here, I'll make it simpler just for you. At this site part of the Statement of Faith is to acknowledge the fact that there are EVIL SPIRITS.

Now, do you think that a 'history' of man is going to be able to view this matter? Do you think a 'scientific' undertaking of history or ancient papers is going to yield on this subject?

They can not because that matter is 'an intangible' as to 'physical evidence.'

Do you understand?

s

 

[CodyWright77]

Hello All! I am knew to this site, and most definitely knew to the thread. I have been thinking somewhat heavily on this subject recently, and perhaps have had some "heated discussions" with a few friends of mine on the subject. For myself, it was the basis of the Gospel accounts (their reliability, accuracy, etc) that gave me a glimmering hope that Jesus is Messiah. Some would call it the "Lee Strobel" method of apologetics... the historical accuracy of the gospel accounts. I for one wouldn't accept the Old Testament if Christ did not quote Moses (but He does, and I accept Christ... but only on the validity of the Gospel Accounts)....

Here is the problem: Do we have some kind of intrinsic proof that Christ is the Son of God? Nope. If we did, we wouldn't have faith, we would have a factual knowledge, no different than knowing that Obama is the President. We are the seed of Abraham, through faith.

Now how does that have a bearing on the "corner stone" of our faith? If the cornerstone is on the historicity of the Gospels, how much faith is left in the belief in Christ?

To the original statement made by the originator of this thread, I think that most theologians leave room for the written account of the Gospels. Most importantly, however, most theologians make the clear distinction that the Gospels were written prior to 70 A.D. (destruction of Jerusalem); and, even though they may try and locate a date when they were being circulated by, most realistic scholars will say somehthing like "no later than ____". , even though the gospels may have been written sooner.

The point is, we don't know when they were written. We know "when" the contents of the gospels are written, but not when they were written themselves. To try and say that we have any factual, un-doubtable proof of an exact date would be nearly a lie... we have good guesses, and that is it.

When I am talking about the historical accuracy of the Gospels, the dating of such is entirely different. The contents is far more important than the date. But on the date, I will say something to the effect of "before the destruction of Jerusalem". This, of course, if because Jesus speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem, prophetically.

If the gospel accounts were written after the destruction, then the prophesy wouldn't really be prophecy, and the validity of the Gospels collapse.

Now the real question comes to a head: If the gospel accounts that we have a proven to be "100%" written after 70 AD (thus causing the foundation for the primary belief in Christ shaken), what will happen to your faith? Will it be decimated?

My friend, who hates the notion of 'proving' the existence of God or the validity of Jesus, would say that this would occur.

Most people only need a reasonable reason to believe, which explaining the historical accuracy of the narrative of the gospel accounts can do (a Risen Jesus of Nazareth is what we are encountered with).

With explaining the Gospel in this way, one can achieve a jumping board to have faith in Jesus, but let it be known that it is a STARTING POINT; it cannot be the foundation of God's faithfulness to Mankind.

 

[Drew]

Here, I'll make it simpler just for you. At this site part of the Statement of Faith is to acknowledge the fact that there are EVIL SPIRITS.

I have never denied the reality of evil spirits.

You have made the false assertion that scholars all deny that there are evil spirits who are at work when humans sin:

There is always one missing mark in every Dr. and scholar. They never ever ever connect their sin to the devil.

Now, do you think that a 'history' of man is going to be able to view this matter? Do you think a 'scientific' undertaking of history or ancient papers is going to yield on this subject?

The fact that some people - scholars or otherwise - do not believe in evil spirits does not mean that scholars who say the gospels were written late are therefore mistaken in such a view. Being mistaken in one area does not mean you are mistaken in all.

Besides - there are indeed reputable, believing scholar who, yes, believe in the reality of evil and the devil, who believe the gospels were written late.

You appear to be carpet-bombing with rhetoric - making untrue assertions that, even if they were true, are not relevant to the matter at issue.

Which is, of course, the question of when the gospels were written.

 

[smaller]

I have never denied the reality of evil spirits.

You have made the false assertion that scholars all deny that there are evil spirits:

Go read what I wrote again. I said 'if' that supposed scholar measured the fact of sin in relationship with the devil unto HIMSELF, I'll listen to what they have to say. And you bring me the very fact I was observing in that N.T. Wright will point to other men, as if his condition was one whit different than theirs? When he gets real about it to himself he'd be much more honest IMHO.

Let's face a couple things about the texts. The Word deals with matters beyond physical comprehensions. As such that takes nearly the entirety of the matters OUTSIDE of history and science. There is no way to capture faith and weigh it in weight by volume. There are also no such measures for the workings of evil spirits.

All of that transpires in the intangible. Evil comes from within the heart. Can you cut it open and FIND it? No. Same with faith.

To think understandings of much can transpire or be seen only by looking on the outside of the cup is the same pit the Pharisees fell into.

The fact that some people - scholars or otherwise - do not believe in evil spirits does not mean that scholars who say the gospels were written late are therefore mistaken in such a view.

Drew, I have read just about every theological scholar there is. Not once do I recall ANY of them making the obvious connection of their OWN sins to EVIL spirits. It just doesn't happen. You may claim it does, so show me.

Outside of this very big and important fact, why would any of what they have to say be of much interest if it's not founded in that fact? No longer for me. Unfortunately it has become the role of most of christianity to sell 'exemptions' to the facts.

Being mistaken in one area does not mean you are mistaken in all.

I follow His Perfect Reflection, and have enough 'mistakes' to engage in on my own without being caught up in millions of pages of facts apart from foundational truths.

Besides - there are indeed reputable, believing scholar who, yes, believe in the reality of evil and the devil, who believe the gospels were written late.

The Gospel was written in the very first book of the Bible. And repeated at length from cover to cover in progressively unfolding fashions. The claim being put forth is that science can only determine that actual paper came about at X later date. The reality is however that they really can't even prove that in a scientific manner. None of the writers are here to testify that they actually wrote anything.

And that is the tunnel that awaits any who venture therein. Science and history can only yield what they can prove and the fact is in retrospect they can't prove anything.

You appear to be carpet-bombing with rhetoric - making untrue assertions that, even if they were true, are not relevant to the matter at issue.

Seriously, they can't scientifically prove ANYTHING when it comes to subject matters of FAITH and EVIL SPIRITS. You couldn't even scientifically prove that today. Not even this exact moment are there any such measures.

Which is, of course, the question of when the gospels were written.

Scientifically you mean? lol

s

 

[Drew]

Go read what I wrote again. I said 'if' that supposed scholar measured the fact of sin in relationship with the devil unto HIMSELF, I'll listen to what they have to say. And you bring me the very fact I was observing in the N.T. Wright will point to other men. When he gets real about it to himself he'd be much more honest IMHO.

You stated something false:

There is always one missing mark in every Dr. and scholar. They never ever ever connect their sin to the devil.

I corrected you - at least one scholar (NT Wright) connects sin to the devil. I am not sufficiently convinced it is worth my while to go to the trouble of digging up statements, written by Wright, that show that he does indeed believe that sin is connected to the devil.

If anyone else asks me for the evidence, I will be happy to provide it.

 

[Drew]

Let's face a couple things about the texts. The Word deals with matters beyond physical comprehensions.

What do you mean by "physical comprehensions". Whatever you mean by it, I am quite confident this is anothee rabbit-trail. Why? Precisely because there committed, believing Christian scholars who believe the gospels were written late in the first century.

So this whole line of implying that those who do not share your unsupported assertions are unable to "discern spiritual truth" is simply an invalid argument.

You are basically begging the question.

 

[Drew]

Let's face a couple things about the texts. The Word deals with matters beyond physical comprehensions. As such that takes nearly the entirety of the matters OUTSIDE of history and science.

Clearly incorrect. The Bible is a massive history of real events involving real people, in real places.

How can you suggest that the Word is basically "outside" history? That would like saying the Tour de France has nothing to do with bicycles!

As reputed theologian GB Caird has famously written: "Christianity appeals to history and to history it must go".

 

[smaller]

What do you mean by "physical comprehensions". Whatever you mean by it, I am quite confident this is anothee rabbit-trail.

The 'field' of theology is an engagement of reason and logic applied to intangible physical matters. That is the 'basis' of same.

Why? Precisely because there committed, believing Christian scholars who believe the gospels were written late in the first century.

They can believe whatever they want to. The fact is that scientifically none of that field of engagement falls under that measure above. It is a side show and a side show only that can ultimately prove nothing about the field of engagement.

So this whole line of implying that those who do not share your unsupported assertions are unable to "discern spiritual truth" is simply an invalid argument.

You are basically begging the question.

What date they may be able to GUESS ONLY about is quite irrelevant.

s

 

[Drew]

They can believe whatever they want to. The fact is that scientifically none of that field of engagement falls under that measure above. It is a side show and a side show only that can ultimately prove nothing about the field of engagement.

Again, you are obviously begging the question. You have provided the reader with no reason to believe that those (Christian) scholars who believe the gospels were written late are mistaken.

At best, you have provided a vague argument about how "real truth" is only discerned in one particular way.

But, and this is vital, you have not shown how those who believe the gospels were written early are those who have access to this "real truth".

I could make the exact same argument you are making (of course, I would never do so, but that's beside the point) and claim this shows that those who believe the gospels were written early are the ones who are mistaken.

 

[smaller]

Again, you are obviously begging the question. You have provided the reader with no reason to believe that those (Christian) scholars who believe the gospels were written late are mistaken.

When a physical document was written, or more importantly, can it be scientifically proven' that X person even wrote it is and remains scientifically IMPossible.

At best, you have provided a vague argument about how "real truth" is only discerned in one particular way.

You made a claim by a person of repute that history is the only measure. I'd say to that man, go find me a written history of the devil. It won't be found because it's AN INTANGIBLE MATTER that must meet the ground of reasoning and logically applied to the INTANGIBLE, hence 'real' theology. Theology can't be based on history because history has no tangible evidence of intangible matters.

History will bow down to the dissection of the intangible in THEOLOGY because theology deals with INTANGIBLES.

But, and this is vital, you have not shown how those who believe the gospels were written early are those who have access to this "real truth".

Drew, seriously, you can believe whatever you want to on the subject matter. Theology is not going to change it's stripes on the basis of history.

Theology was 'spawned' in the hearts of men contemplating INTANGIBLES.

Some would certainly like to have it spun some other way, but that is NOT theology.

I could make the exact same argument you are making (of course, I would never do so, but that's beside the point) and claim this shows that those who believe the gospels were written early are the ones who are mistaken.

Like I said, it can't be proven whatsoever scientifically that X person wrote X document. It's not even possible in their realm. Any student of history also knows that it is only the VICTORS who write same. Evidence to the contrary of the VICTORS is often REMOVED. So history itself, if it yields any facts, is that it is DECEPTIVE and it so because of the INTANGIBLE FACTORS in the hearts of the VICTORS.

Back to theology.

s

 

[Drew]

When a physical document was written, or more importantly, can it be scientifically proven' that X person even wrote it is and remains scientifically IMPossible.

Strawman. No one is claiming that one can "prove" scientifically when the gospels were written. But, of course, this does not mean that there are not other means available to arrive at a "best estimate" of the time of writing of these documents.

You made a claim by a person of repute that history is the only measure.

I never posted such a thing.

I'd say to that man, go find me a written history of the devil. It won't be found because it's AN INTANGIBLE MATTER that must meet the ground of reasoning and logical applied to the INTANGIBLE, hence 'real' theology. Theology can't be based on history because history has no tangible evidence of intangible matters.

Wow. We have this massive compendium of yes, the history of God dealing with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, the nation of Israel, the exile, the birth and life of Jesus, and so on.

And you are telling us that history has no connection to theology?

This is so obviously untrue it is difficult to know how to deal with it. The Bible is not primarily a collection of moral laws, it is not (primarily) a collection of abstract statement about the metaphysics of the universe.

What it is fundamentally is, yes, the history of God and His creation. It is basically comprised of 5 acts:

1. Creation;
2. Fall;
3. Israel;
4. Jesus;
5. The church

To suggest the Bible does not transmit its theology through an historical narrative is to make one of the biggest fundamental errors one could possibly make.

It is simply a category error - with the smell of gnosticism about it - to try to divorce theology from real history.

 

[Drew]

The reality is however that they really can't even prove that in a scientific manner. None of the writers are here to testify that they actually wrote anything.

And that is the tunnel that awaits any who venture therein. Science and history can only yield what they can prove and the fact is in retrospect they can't prove anything.

You are not correctly representing the field of history. No competent historian would claim that they "prove" anything. Science is a different matterly entirely where there is indeed this issue of experimental verification. But history and science do not use the same methods, not least because, of course, we cannot "re-run" history.

But this does not, of course, mean that we cannot have a reasonable degree of confidence about whether events (in the past) did, or did not, actually take place.

 

[smaller]

Strawman. No one is claiming that one can "prove" scientifically when the gospels were written.

Well, thanks for acknowledging the fact.

The only way to prove the soundness of writing from a theological perspective is derived from the measures used in the realm. The measures of the intangible. And there are very certain measures provided in the text itself. When they happened to hit pen to paper would be quite irrelevant in the realm of spiritual or evil measures and the applications of logic and reason to those matters.

The thoughts put forth in the text, to those who use and understand the measures of theology are just as applicable today as they were on the 1st day of Adam and the facts are born out and viewable in present day activities. Yet the sources of none of it are actually viewable tangibly or scientifically. Even in the history of powerful governments the realms of philosophies are applied because even the unsaved know that it is the intangibles that are the 'real' drivers.

But, of course, this does not mean that there are not other means available to arrive at a "best estimate" of the time of writing of these documents.

If you want to bow to Wrights social-scientific approach you are welcome to. That is again a very very limited perspective of the intangibles. His basis is admittedly NOT on the intangible factors whatsoever by his own lips. His attempts are like many such attempts, replacement measures that attempt to REMOVE the intangibles from the field of study. A 'side' show to theology.

Wow. We have this massive compendium of yes, the history of God dealing with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, the nation of Israel, the exile, the birth and life of Jesus, and so on.

Do you really think it was a 'historical tangible matter' that Abraham sensed that there was no FEAR OF GOD in the hearts of those he encountered? lol.

Abraham was A THEOLOGIAN.

He too studied the intangible and the UNseen around himself. No study based on the history of Abraham are going to yield up the TOOLS he used and employed. They are and remain the study of Abraham's INTANGIBLES.

And you are telling us that history has no connection to theology?

When you find physical tangible evidence that you can weigh and measure on matters spiritual, evil, or even in writing on a page you let me know. Here's a hint. Such things do not exist as physical matters, nor will they EVER. Matters from writing or from history in theology will be dissected exactly upon the lines of intangible matters. And again, WHY? Because they are matters of SPIRIT and of EVIL.

This is so obviously untrue it is difficult to know how to deal with it.

Then I'd suggest you stay in the study arena of the tangible arena as you are off the mark in theology.

The Bible is not primarily a collection of moral laws, it is not (primarily) a collection of abstract statement about the metaphysics of the universe.

If you think they do not speak to matters spiritual or matters evil, both intangible and matters of 'heart,' you again are out of the field of theology.

What it is fundamentally is, yes, the history of God and His creation. It is basically comprised of 5 acts:

1. Creation;
2. Fall;
3. Israel;
4. Jesus;
5. The church

You are welcome to spin this conversation off the simplicities put forth. When one even STARTS an observation about GOD and HIS DEALINGS they are dealing with matters UN-seen and deployed in the heart. That will remain a matter apart from the physical arena. Reason and logic dictates other measures to come to grips with these matters. That is what theology IS.

To suggest the Bible does not transmit its theology through an historical narrative is to make one of the biggest fundamental errors one could possibly make.

Well Drew, it you move over to a study of the intangible factors you'd be in the arena again. One can not scientifically measure matters of theology. They are studies in reason and logic in the unseen arena. Love, faith, justification, evil, spiritual blindness, resistance, deception, Divine Guidance, etc etc etc.

All quite a LENGTHY LIST of INTANGIBLES to take on.

Gnosticism? HA!

Theology: the study of divine things

It is simply a category error - with the smell of gnosticism about it - to try to divorce theology from real history.

Then stand and watch a marching army or a car driving by. That is something you can see with flesh eyes.

enjoy!

s

 

[smaller]

You are not correctly representing the field of history. No competent historian would claim that they "prove" anything.

Again, thank you. So far you've factually noted historians and science can't actually prove any date or anything from history. Brilliant! Now, lets all run headlong that direction?

lol

s

 

[Free]

So, to get this thread on topic:

You have provided the reader with no reason to believe that those (Christian) scholars who believe the gospels were written late are mistaken.

^This is what this thread boils down to.


A claim was made in the OP regarding dating and that essentially all scholars are wrong in dating the Gospels 30-70 years after Jesus' ministry. However, there has been no support or substantial reason given for such an assertion, and as such, it remains baseless opinion.

And, as has been stated several times, the dating is irrelevant to the truth contained in the Gospels and their divine inspiration. I think the Lennox quote in my signature applies all too well here.

 

[reba]

Good Grief they are the Word of God He wrote them at the correct time His time!

 

[Drew]

Again, thank you. So far you've factually noted historians and science can't actually prove any date or anything from history. Brilliant! Now, lets all run headlong that direction?

lol

s

What is really worth a "laugh out loud" is your strong implication that if we cannot "prove" something, we cannot otherwise reasonably come to have confidence that the thing is "true".

By that (of course highly unrealistic) standard, you would doubt that Jesus lived as a human being 2000 years ago.

Your position is extremely unusual - you are basically discrediting the entire enterprise of history (since historical events cannot be proven).

 

[Drew]

And, as has been stated several times, the dating is irrelevant to the truth contained in the Gospels and their divine inspiration.

I would agree with this - this is not a "life and death" issue.