When were the gospels written?

[Asyncritus]

Verses 1 and 2 give us no idea of a date but verse 3 states " 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you." In English, that seems to indicate that a fair bit of time had already passed.

Whatever that means exavtly, I would suggest that it does not mean 30 years or more. That also supports my contention that his was the last gospel written.

Although he could have used other sources, he clearly was also going by memory.

You cannot be serious.

1 ¶ Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us,

That is evidently written material. As they have done, so am I going to do is what he is saying.

In the end, this gives us absolutely no indication of an early date.

It does.

2 even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word,

That tells us that they were alive and well - which means that this was not far into the Acts record, where they were being killed for the gospel's sake.

There is no mention that they were Gospels:

This is silly. None of the four is called a 'gospel anywhere in the texts.

Luke 1:1, Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us (ESV)

Luke 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, (KJV)

Again, absolutely no indication of when they were written and it is presumption that the writings were the other three Gospels.

So you haven't been able to present a smidgin of evidence against the very early date.

By who? Jesus? And then he decided to put Mark's name at the top? Not likely.

Mark's name, or anybody else's is not part of the text.

So, I stand by my statement that there has been no support or substantial reason given to believe an early date for the Gospels and that scholars are wrong on the matter. It's been unsupported opinion. And for what reason, I do not know.

You have presented no evidence for the later dates either, apart from 'it's the scholars' opinions'. Mine is as good as theirs any day, on that basis.

 

[Asyncritus]

Can somebody fix the formatting of the posts please?

 

[Free]

You have presented no evidence for the later dates either, apart from 'it's the scholars' opinions'. Mine is as good as theirs any day, on that basis.

I don't need to present evidence for later dates and that was never my intent. The end of the matter is that there is little, if any reason, to doubt what would seem to be the overwhelming opinion of scholars for a later date. Your opinion as good as theirs? Not a chance.

 

[Free]

Can somebody fix the formatting of the posts please?

Is that correct?

 

[Drew]

Your opinion as good as theirs? Not a chance.

This is the key point - and we all are all in the same boat on this; none of us (I am quite sure) have any training relevant to the matter at issue.

One often encounters the following argument in this, and other, settings: "Well, the experts are obviously wrong because they overlooked X". The problem is that X is almost always something obvious. It stretches credulity to the breaking point to imagine that generations of scholars have all missed the blindingly obvious. Possible, yes, but exceedingly unlikely.

And then there is entirely inappropriate argument that "the scholars are using human wisdom, whereas I - who believe the gosples were written earlier - have the Spirit guiding me"

Please - a sixth grader can the problem in such an argument. For one, many of the scholars who believe in a "late" writing of the gospels are believers.

The only credible arguments I can think for an earlier writing than the general consensus would take one of the following forms:

1. Presentation of a credible argument as to why so many professional scholars are intentionally distorting the truth;

2. Some item of evidence that at least plausibly could have been overlooked by the scholars.

 

[Sparkey]

Bottom line: To this point, there is no case here against a "late" writing of the gospels. Likewise, there has been no case for a "late" writing of the gospels.

This does not mean that such cases do not exist, but they have not been presented in this thread.

If I missed something - some actual argument for either a late or early writing - please advise.

The only credible arguments I can think for an earlier writing than the general consensus would take one of the following forms:

1. Presentation of a credible argument as to why so many professional scholars are intentionally distorting the truth;

Thanks Drew, for clearing up what the problem is. Please see Post #13 for a credible reason. No, wait - I'll save you the trouble:

Selected portions of POST #13:

Before the eighteenth century N. T. criticism did not go beyond that of the Latin and Greek texts, if we except the ancient remarks on the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse already noticed.







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.

I hope that the above explains the severity of these attacks on the Gospels, and why I take such serious exception to their ideas.

Further research in the Catholic Encyclopedia reveals an attempt to compare "the Oral Gospel" with the written cannon:

The gospels and the oral gospel

"All recent critics admit that the contents of our four Gospels are intimately connected with more primitive accounts of Christ's life, which may be described, in a general way, as an Oral Gospel. They are well aware that Jesus Himself did not consign to writing His own teachings, and directed His Apostles not to write, but to preach, the Gospel to their fellow-men. They regard as an undoubted fact that these first disciples of the Master, faithful to the mission which He had entrusted to them, began, from the day of Pentecost on, boldly to declare by word of mouth what they had seen and heard (cf. Acts 4:2), considering as a special duty of theirs "the ministry of the word" (Acts 6:4). It is plain, too, that those whom the Apostles immediately selected to help them in the discharge of this most important mission had to be, like the Apostles themselves, able to bear witness to the life and teachings of Christ (cf. Acts 1:21 sq.). The substance of the Evangelical narratives would thus be repeated viva voce by the early teachers of Christianity, before any one of them bethought himself to set it down in writing. It can be readily seen that such Apostolic teaching was then inculcated in words which tended to assume a stereotyped form of expression, similar to that which we find in the Synoptic Gospels. In like manner, also, one can easily realize how the Apostles would not be concerned with the exact order of events narrated, and would not aim at completeness in telling what they "had seen and heard"."
​

 

[francisdesales]

I'm not here to discuss Islam nor is it appropriate to this thread. I do believe that they suffer a similar problem to the current day Jews however i.e. the Law showing lawlessness 'within' and they all thinking it to be an outside matter rather than the 'internal condition' that JESUS shows lawlessness to be.

That was not my point - but rather - that "Scriptures" and their status are subjectively determined and depend upon faith for their acceptance, not historically objective means. While history plays a part in moving our minds to believe that the Gospels are truly from God, there still is a leap of faith, since the Gospels are not self-authenticating as to their status as Scriptures. They don't call themselves "Scripture". They are theological works for a community of people who ALREADY believe that Jesus is the Christ.

My point is that we rely on men and our own faith to vouch for the Bible as God's Word, rather than only historical study that would objectively prove that Paul's writings are from God.

This will probably end up being trashed, but I can't fault, nor do I believe the RCC or you as a member CAN fault any person who confronts the facts of their own sin and bows their head unto God to bring understanding and good works. In this way too I am an ally of the RCC and with any person who does so approach God as this is A GODLY WORKING in them imho. A spiritual working.

Again, I agree with what you are saying here (and in the majority of your post that I chose not to copy), but it is not relevant to my point.

Certainly, God works through people in different ways - but I am speaking about the idea that we can conclude that the Bible is God's Word by historical study ALONE.

Like I said on this thread, it is likely that if God in Christ came to you and taught you out of the O.T. Law and Prophets you would have 'more than likely' wrote it down, and quickly if it was POST resurrection.

And like I said on this thread, that is an anachronistic viewpoint. People of the first century were not concerned with 'getting things down in writing' for the sake of recording, like we are today. We are not speaking of people from the "Age of Information", but ancients who highly respected oral teachings. John and Paul, for example, speak of how they would greatly prefer to be present in person to give teachings. They wrote because they could not teach orally to other people in need of their help. From this, we can surmise that writings were made to communities with the purpose of passing along teachings when the Apostles were not able to be present, NOT for the purpose of recording the Gospel...

It was only when the Church realized that Christ was delayed in coming and the Apostles were dying off that there seemed to be a more pressing need to record the life of Christ in writing.

The concern of the Christ was that the Gospel was PREACHED, not recorded, logged and filed away for future historians and theologians. Nowhere do we find Christ even remotely suggesting this - which would sink your premise, I believe. It is clear to me that Jesus was more concerned with building a body of believers - a Church - which would spread the Gospel by oral and written means as the Church saw fit.

And you would have also shared the information verbally. At the end of John for example John notes that the 'whole world' could not contain the books written about Jesus. (my brief paraphrase)

True, which explains the preference for oral teachings over written ones.

Having personal scribes was not uncommon or unusual during those times.

Even if that was true (which I doubt based on the expense of writing letters at the time) it doesn't follow that the Apostles were concerned with writing anything. Paul writes because he is approached by distant communities to answer theological questions - or to motivate them to remain faithful to their calling. NOT to "record the teachings of Jesus". Note, Paul rarely speaks of the life of Jesus... Nor do any other writings outside of the Gospels.

Israel itself was well practiced in both writings and recitations that were required of 'all' their memberships. Those who were good at it went on to be Priests and official temple/local scribes.

Very few people were "scribes". The rest memorized prayers by hearing and saying them over and over again. No one took a wheelbarrow full of scrolls home after Saturday services. I know this idea from experience. When you repeat the same prayers (such as the Mass) over and over again, they become second-nature. You don't even need a Missal. You don't need to even be able to read. Given the availability of scrolls (since there were no books yet) during the first century, I have to say I am skeptical about this need to write everything down.

Even in the Middle Ages, people knew the Gospel through means OTHER than by reading. Stain glass windows, constant repetition, plays and skits, statues, pictures, etc., all helped to teach the Gospel to people who had no books (or even the ability to read them, in most cases).

There was also the practice of 'contracts' in writing. It was not like they were illiterate.

Writing "contracts" is quite different than writing a diary or a narrative.

"you give 10 bushels of corn every month, I give you 1 sheep"... "OK, put your "x" right there..."

We are fortunate to have the matters we have in writing. How one views those will vary dramatically. I moved away from rote repetition long ago based on the direct advice of Jesus, that is, by His Words.

You are misinterpreting his Words. He is speaking of VAIN repetition, saying something over and over again for the sake of saying it, as if I say something 100 times, God will do it, not memorizing a Psalm for future daily prayer. And nowhere does Jesus state that we are better served by reading. This is an anachronistic attitude.

Regards

 

[Asyncritus]

Deleted for duplication.

 

[smaller]

My point is that we rely on men and our own faith to vouch for the Bible as God's Word, rather than only historical study that would objectively prove that Paul's writings are from God.

There is no reliance apart from His Spirit. That factor must be in the mix or not. Men and faith do not a full sum make. There is the quickening that The Spirit provides and makes the matters different by 'active participation.'

I certainly understand your press to rely on men, as the bulk of your particular sect insists. But they also bow to the fact that God works outside their unit. Therein is an obvious statement, to me anyway.

Certainly, God works through people in different ways - but I am speaking about the idea that we can conclude that the Bible is God's Word by historical study ALONE.

No historical study can vivify The Word as it is The Spirit quickens, joins and brings all understandings. Apart from that it's just more dead letter and historical classic pursuits. My complaint about the 'history of men of faith' approach resides in the fact that the Apostles themselves admitted openly to only partial sight and also to having sin. What then can such compilations bring other than 'over time' various taintings of the progressions of the handlers obvious difficulties, which are progressively dividing as history shows us. And this TOO is a WRITTEN SPIRITUAL PRINCIPLE. When one group or sect of standard bearers claims to have it all, another set springs up, showing what are oftentimes obvious faults in judgements or determinations that can not be bowed to. And from there we have our current state of affairs.

And like I said on this thread, that is an anachronistic viewpoint. People of the first century were not concerned with 'getting things down in writing' for the sake of recording, like we are today.

I would simply point to the muting of Zacharius, father of John the Baptist in Luke's account where when he wrote "his name is John" that immediately his tongue was loosed. Writing was not uncommon, particularly in the 'Priesthood' and the 'vivifying' is shown by the Spirit in the action. Therein resides the mystery of these matters. If those men wrote, talked, acted in Truth, the Spirit confirms the facts. The course of time in those equations are somewhat diminished as it is and remains an active course. If a man writes or speaks truth today, there is and remains that connection. Paul and Peter show this fact, here for example:

1 Corinthians 2:13
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Any person seeking understanding will have to take the path laid forth and COMPARE just as they did. Paul provided the measure of Holy Ghost teachings and the path unfolding in his own 'written' teachings. But apart from Holy Spirit they too remain 'dead letter' values and will also remain covered to the handlers or they will produce dead letter understandings. Natural stuff.

We are not speaking of people from the "Age of Information", but ancients who highly respected oral teachings. John and Paul, for example, speak of how they would greatly prefer to be present in person to give teachings. They wrote because they could not teach orally to other people in need of their help. From this, we can surmise that writings were made to communities with the purpose of passing along teachings when the Apostles were not able to be present, NOT for the purpose of recording the Gospel...

Luke wrote to Theophilus. He did so in order to set an orderly account of events. The time that it was penned would be to me somewhat irrelevant because Luke does claim 'perfect understanding' from the beginning.

A carnal man will see for example only the flesh person Theophilus. The Spirit may show some a spiritual reality that Luke was writing to Theophilus which name means "friend of God." And in that the writing to some is purposefully extended and not just by coincidence, but by a working of the Spirit in the conveyance.

Names and places do contain many Spiritual connotations. Paul shows this matter adroitly in his understandings of Law and Prophets, in effect bringing allegorical/spiritual understandings of historical events. That remains a matter that history can not provide and that men apart from the vivifying of The Spirit can not understand or come to grips with. John also brings us along a similar path in showing that we know Him who is from the beginning. This is not really a time question and it is even less a capture or understanding of historical doxs. Without allegory and parable in hand with understanding that The Holy Spirit does bring, The Word itself remains dead letter and under continual dispute.

It was only when the Church realized that Christ was delayed in coming and the Apostles were dying off that there seemed to be a more pressing need to record the life of Christ in writing.

It would seem that Paul communicated with the churches 'in writing' and with many specific purposes. I'd expect that they did so because of persecution and the resistance of Satanic powers infiltrating the churches almost immediately, to again, set things straight. But to strain upon this matter or relegate it to early or late date 'WITHIN' their lifetimes is just kinda a lame pursuit anyway isn't it? What's the difference? What difference would it make if it was X years after the events but within their lifetimes? We do take it that it was within their lifetimes. And I would say the written sharing was born of immediate and progressive need. If you for example had miracles being worked through you as the Apostles did you would certainly share that information to confirm the message and the working to others as a bolster of faith pursuits.

The concern of the Christ was that the Gospel was PREACHED, not recorded, logged and filed away for future historians and theologians. Nowhere do we find Christ even remotely suggesting this - which would sink your premise, I believe.

The Gospel itself was also preached by the Prophets by Christ in them and recorded for our 'mutual' benefit. The fashions and intents of the Prophets were very much aligned with written record. That was part of their patterns. If they spoke something that didn't come to pass, they were under the penalty of death. So accurate recording might have seemed to been important for ones life. To 'check the records' so to speak. And the fact is they also handed these down from generation to generation, Daniel for example 'reading' the writings of Jeremiah to determine the time of Israel in Babylon.

Daniel 9:2
In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.

This was a practiced fact of written recording in the O.T. and I doubt this practice fell far from the tree in the N.T.

Even in Acts we can find that LETTERS were sent out almost immediately concerning attempts to bring Gentiles under the Law.

Acts 15:
23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.
24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:



So, how soon did this matter arise? It would seem somewhat 'early' in the events, and yes, letters of determinations and teachings DID go out, early and often. Letters of sending certain men to certain places, letters of introduction, letters of requests. Early church history was far from 'all oral' until the 'later dates.' It's just problematic to prove it from a science or historical point.

It is clear to me that Jesus was more concerned with building a body of believers - a Church - which would spread the Gospel by oral and written means as the Church saw fit.

The large question is a matter of 'when.' I would maintain that it was fairly early in the process and was a matter of development over time as well. But is it really a matter worth contention? Never. Just a matter of contemplation to me.

True, which explains the preference for oral teachings over written ones.

I would find no variations. If it was a legit oral matter then it will also be confirmed in writing.

Even if that was true (which I doubt based on the expense of writing letters at the time) it doesn't follow that the Apostles were concerned with writing anything. Paul writes because he is approached by distant communities to answer theological questions - or to motivate them to remain faithful to their calling. NOT to "record the teachings of Jesus". Note, Paul rarely speaks of the life of Jesus... Nor do any other writings outside of the Gospels.

There is an open written example of letters going out and when right there in Acts 15. So yes, it was a certain practice of communication, in writing. Are we doing any differently?

Very few people were "scribes". The rest memorized prayers by hearing and saying them over and over again. No one took a wheelbarrow full of scrolls home after Saturday services. I know this idea from experience. When you repeat the same prayers (such as the Mass) over and over again, they become second-nature. You don't even need a Missal. You don't need to even be able to read. Given the availability of scrolls (since there were no books yet) during the first century, I have to say I am skeptical about this need to write everything down.

See Acts 15 above. That matter came fairly early.

Even in the Middle Ages, people knew the Gospel through means OTHER than by reading. Stain glass windows, constant repetition, plays and skits, statues, pictures, etc., all helped to teach the Gospel to people who had no books (or even the ability to read them, in most cases).

Creation itself is a form of testimony. A live recording.

Psalm 19:1
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

s

 

[Asyncritus]

This is the key point - and we all are all in the same boat on this; none of us (I am quite sure) have any training relevant to the matter at issue.

Your faith in their 'training' is touching if misplaced.

Can you let me know what 'training' any of the 12 disciples (and Jesus, for that matter) had in 'theology'?

Yet, they managed to overturn the world.

One often encounters the following argument in this, and other, settings: "Well, the experts are obviously wrong because they overlooked X". The problem is that X is almost always something obvious. It stretches credulity to the breaking point to imagine that generations of scholars have all missed the blindingly obvious. Possible, yes, but exceedingly unlikely.

Let me ask you this: Name ONE reasonably well-known 'theologian' who has stated openly, publicly, and in a scholarly theological journal (reputable???) that he/she believes in the plenary inspiration of the scriptures as we have them now.

And then there is entirely inappropriate argument that "the scholars are using human wisdom, whereas I - who believe the gosples were written earlier - have the Spirit guiding me"

Please - a sixth grader can the problem in such an argument. For one, many of the scholars who believe in a "late" writing of the gospels are believers.

See the above question.

The only credible arguments I can think for an earlier writing than the general consensus would take one of the following forms:

1. Presentation of a credible argument as to why so many professional scholars are intentionally distorting the truth;

See Sparrowhawke's previous post. Your faith is touching, Drew, but it needs a few touches of reality as well.

As I keep saying to you, they spend their time on other people's works, and NOT on the scriptures.

Here's the Oxford University BTh Syllabus:

Candidates will study the Pentateuch and the Prophetic Books, with particular reference to Genesis, Deuteronomy and Isaiah. They will study specific texts: either Genesis 1–3, 15–17, Deuteronomy 5–7, 12, 15– 16 and Isaiah 5–11, 49–53 in English; or Genesis 1–4 or Jonah in Hebrew.

Note the pathetic slenderness of the scriptural content of this course. Unless I'm mistaken, that's 19 chapters of the OT.

The NT content is equally pathetic:

They will study in detail: either Matthew 9-10, 26-28 (with the option of Markan parallels) and 1 Corinthians 7-11 in English, or Matthew 9-10 in Greek, or 1 Corinthians 7-8 in Greek.

That's about 11 chapters.

Well well well.

Now the tripe:

Candidates will study some of the foundational issues involved in the study of Christian theology including faith, revelation, Scripture, authority, tradition, development, religious language, and the relationship of Christian theology to other disciplines.

That's approximately 33% of the course.

Do you see there anything about the whole purpose of the scriptures? I must have missed it, but there's not much.

That's probably year 1.

In years 2 and 3, they are expected to have a thin. broad acquaintance with about another one third of the Bible, such as any averagely serious Bible student would have. The rest is ignored.

Now look at the rest of the syllabus, and indicate to me, where the Bible figures anywhere in it:

Section C: Doctrine and History
C.1. Christian Doctrine†‡
C.2. Church History†‡
C.3. Ecclesiology†‡
C.4. Study of Theology†‡
Section D: Practical Theology
D.1. Mission and Ministry‡
D.2. Christian Ethics§
D.3. Christian Worship†‡
D.4. Christian Spirituality†‡
Section E: Other Subjects
E.1. Christian Mission†‡
E.2. Christian Faith and Other Religions†‡
E.3. Christian Faith and Philosophy†‡
E.4. Christian Faith and Science†‡
E.5. Christian Faith and Social Sciences†‡
E.6. Christian Faith and Psychology†‡
E.7. Canon Law†‡
E.8. Confessional Study‡
E.9. Special Subject†‡Â§

You will observe just how much swallowing of opinons of other theologians is expected of them.

Can I therefore ask you why you think one of these products of the university of Oxford can reasonably be expected to know so much more about the scriptures than we do? And why this 'training' is if such importance in your eyes?

The only credible arguments I can think for an earlier writing than the general consensus would take one of the following forms:

1. Presentation of a credible argument as to why so many professional scholars are intentionally distorting the truth;

See Sparrowhawke's previous post. Your faith is touching, Drew, but it needs a few touches of reality as well.

2. Some item of evidence that at least plausibly could have been overlooked by the scholars.

I promised you a bundle. I'm presently preparing for a long journey, but as soon as I have the time I will fulfil my promise.

 

[Asyncritus]

From Sparrowhawke's post.

The gospels and the oral gospel

"All recent critics

[now there's a word which speaks volumes. It comes from the word for 'judge' - so here are these people arrogating to themselves the right to be 'judges' of the Word of God!]

admit that the contents of our four Gospels are intimately connected with more primitive accounts of Christ's life

[for which they have not the slightest evidence. Note the implication that there were dozens such, from every Tom, Dick and Harry],

which may be described, in a general way, as an Oral Gospel.

[This is a pure assumption. If the writers wrote, as I'm suggesting, as and when things happened, or Jesus Himself oversaw their writing, then this is another theory which deserves to be binned.

I'd also like to remind readers of the phenomenon of Chinese Whispers. What the first person hears, is usually not what the last one hears by a L-O-O-O-O-O-N-N-N-G way. The 'critics' know this, and by subtle implication disparage the correctness and authenticity of the gospels.]

They are well aware that Jesus Himself did not consign to writing His own teachings, and directed His Apostles not to write, but to preach, the Gospel to their fellow-men.

[This, of course, means they could not or would not write, or didn't bother. Preaching, of course, could not possibly include writing!].

They regard as an undoubted fact that these first disciples of the Master, faithful to the mission which He had entrusted to them, began, from the day of Pentecost on, boldly to declare by word of mouth what they had seen and heard (cf. Acts 4:2), considering as a special duty of theirs "the ministry of the word" (Acts 6:4).
[This ministry of the Word, obviously could not possibly have included writing down what they had seen and heard, and using it as a preaching vehicle!]

It is plain, too, that those whom the Apostles immediately selected to help them in the discharge of this most important mission had to be, like the Apostles themselves, able to bear witness to the life and teachings of Christ (cf. Acts 1:21 sq.).

[Therefore, these too were 'witnesses' of what had happened, as Jesus describes them: Jn 15.27 and ye also bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.They were first-hand EYEWITNESSES not third or fourth hand hearsayers.]

The substance of the Evangelical narratives would thus be repeated viva voce by the early teachers of Christianity, before any one of them bethought himself to set it down in writing.

[Yes, of course. Thirty or forty years later!They were just too stupid or idle to figure out that writing them down asap would have been a good thing to do! Tut tut, you disciple dummies!]

It can be readily seen that such Apostolic teaching was then inculcated in words which tended to assume a stereotyped form of expression, similar to that which we find in the Synoptic Gospels.

[That is exactly what all this guesswork "proves"].

In like manner, also, one can easily realize how the Apostles would not be concerned with the exact order of events narrated, and would not aim at completeness in telling what they "had seen and heard"."

[If they knew that their writings were to be the written words of 'witnesses', as Jesus said in the quote above, then they were going to speak and write in the most painstakingly exact fashion that they could.

Else, they would be found to be 'false witnessses of God,' as Paul said].
​

But you note how, all the way through, the would be's, could be's and certainly's abound. Just as they abound in my own writing on the subject.

Now, Free and Drew, produce your strong reasons for preferring their hypotheses and guesses over mine.

 

[Free]

Now, Free and Drew, produce your strong reasons for preferring their hypotheses and guesses over mine.

I cannot say it better than has been said already:

This is the key point - and we all are all in the same boat on this; none of us (I am quite sure) have any training relevant to the matter at issue.

One often encounters the following argument in this, and other, settings: "Well, the experts are obviously wrong because they overlooked X". The problem is that X is almost always something obvious. It stretches credulity to the breaking point to imagine that generations of scholars have all missed the blindingly obvious. Possible, yes, but exceedingly unlikely.

That sums it up for me.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

Try reading Redating The New Testament by by John A. T. Robinson for a more scholarly view on early dates for NT writings. Here's a link to his pdf: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Frichardwaynegarganta.com%2Fredating-testament.pdf&ei=xJkMT6_-B4jl0QGd2OGRAw&usg=AFQjCNF-tseZ5aOulO_3Zx8gyLMk0HIM2A&sig2=EU6gujnEKISUQEZE_ViMGA

Here are the dates that the writer has concluded that the gospels and Acts were likely written:


According to John

​

​

c.40 CE


According to Matthew ​

40-50 CE

Attributed to Mark ​

c. 60-63 CE

According to Luke ​

60-63 CE

Acts of the Apostles
64 CE ​

 

[Asyncritus]

I cannot say it better than has been said already:



That sums it up for me.

I said 'strong' reasons, remember?

So your fallacious 'appeal to authority' stands, rather than facts. Sad.

Interesting that Robinson brings the dates closer to mine. That carry any weight with you?

I don't know his reasons, but clearly common sense may be triumphing at long last.

Here's a quote from him (just found another link, ToT):

For, much more than is generally recognized, the chronology of the New Testament rests on presuppositions rather than facts.

Oh, I recognise it all right. How about you?

Here's another:

It is only when one pauses to do this that one realizes how thin is the foundation for some of the textbook answers and how circular the arguments for many of the relative datings. Disturb the position of one major piece and the pattern starts disconcertingly to dissolve.

And yet another:

An amazing example of uncritical dogmatism in New Testament studies is the belief that the Synoptic Gospels should be dated after the Jewish War of ad 66-70 because they contain prophecies ex eventu of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in the year

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1976_robinson_redating-testament.html

Scholars, did I hear you say, Drew?

 

[Asyncritus]

Try reading Redating The New Testament by by John A. T. Robinson for a more scholarly view on early dates for NT writings. Here's a link to his pdf: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...O_3Zx8gyLMk0HIM2A&sig2=EU6gujnEKISUQEZE_ViMGA

Here are the dates that the writer has concluded that the gospels and Acts were likely written:


According to John

c.40 CE


According to Matthew ​

40-50 CE

Attributed to Mark ​

c. 60-63 CE

According to Luke ​

60-63 CE

Acts of the Apostles
64 CE ​

Sorry ToT. The link doesn't work.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

Sorry ToT. The link doesn't work.

It will only work if you have Adobe 9 or higher installed on your computer. The only other place I could find it listed as a free, complete, and readable work is here: http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1976_robinson_redating-testament.html

 

[francisdesales]

I certainly understand your press to rely on men, as the bulk of your particular sect insists.

Your attempt to poison the well is irrelevant. We are talking about history. Historical analysis of events depends upon men, witnesses to the fact. As I said before, "the Spirit told me so" just doesn't work in HISTORICAL analysis.

But they also bow to the fact that God works outside their unit. Therein is an obvious statement, to me anyway.

Now we move on to the non sequitars. That was never a statement that I or the Church has made. If you knew me better, you would know that I have occasionally posted that God does work outside of ecclesiastical communities, to include Muslims and Hindus and Jews.

No historical study can vivify The Word as it is The Spirit quickens, joins and brings all understandings. Apart from that it's just more dead letter and historical classic pursuits. My complaint about the 'history of men of faith' approach resides in the fact that the Apostles themselves admitted openly to only partial sight and also to having sin. What then can such compilations bring other than 'over time' various taintings of the progressions of the handlers obvious difficulties, which are progressively dividing as history shows us.

This shows an amazing lack of faith in the work of the Spirit. God works through men, that's a fact. What we must be aware of is the limitations of the study of theology and history. There is some intersection by which the mind can accept that the Bible is God's Word, but neither art alone is enough.

And while historical studies cannot prove that the Bible is the Word of God, there is a plenitude of evidence that we can trust the writers that they related truth and those who heard them believed their words that they spoke for God.

I would simply point to the muting of Zacharius, father of John the Baptist in Luke's account where when he wrote "his name is John" that immediately his tongue was loosed. Writing was not uncommon, particularly in the 'Priesthood' and the 'vivifying' is shown by the Spirit in the action.

LOL! One can see that there was a different motivation for Zacharius to write. Naturally, a priest would be able to read/write, since he had to read from the Sacred Scrolls. But this is a truly far-fetched bit of "evidence" to claim that this proves that it was common to write narratives as they occured. "History" was still a relatively new science in the first century, and very few were dedicated to following the rules that we now take for granted.

Therein resides the mystery of these matters. If those men wrote, talked, acted in Truth, the Spirit confirms the facts.

That is a matter of faith, since the Spirit's presence is dependent upon a subjective measure. Faith. Let's remember the Bible's definition given in Hebrews.

The course of time in those equations are somewhat diminished as it is and remains an active course. If a man writes or speaks truth today, there is and remains that connection. Paul and Peter show this fact, here for example:

1 Corinthians 2:13
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Any person seeking understanding will have to take the path laid forth and COMPARE just as they did.

It is not uncommon for people of your sect to surmise that...

The comparision measure ends up being your own personal opinion. We don't have to go very far to see Sacred Scriptures speaking of "opinions" in a derisive manner.

Paul provided the measure of Holy Ghost teachings and the path unfolding in his own 'written' teachings.

Yea, read Galatians 1:9-10. He said "what I say is from God".

You can believe that or not. But it is not self-authenticating. As you well know, many people have "claimed" to have the Spirit leading them, only to lead them and others to spiritual and actual death.

But apart from Holy Spirit they too remain 'dead letter' values and will also remain covered to the handlers or they will produce dead letter understandings. Natural stuff.

Yet again, I remind you of the subject - not about the spiritual effects of the said writings, but of their origin. I am not sure why you keep straying away from that.

It would seem that Paul communicated with the churches 'in writing' and with many specific purposes. I'd expect that they did so because of persecution and the resistance of Satanic powers infiltrating the churches almost immediately, to again, set things straight. But to strain upon this matter or relegate it to early or late date 'WITHIN' their lifetimes is just kinda a lame pursuit anyway isn't it?

No, it is theologically-based. Those who are "sola scriptura" inclined would love to see the idea that the Gospels were written in the upper room in the week before Pentecost, while the rest were carefully compiled to become a future "Bible". This bias does not desire to realize that the Word of God can be spread WITHOUT the New Testament. Thus, the need to push the date into the immediate time frame of the very beginning of the Apostolic ministry. Again, the anachronistic notion that people are to read their bibles and figure it out for themselves is cut and pasted onto people of the first century, so as to "justify" their own manners.

What's the difference? What difference would it make if it was X years after the events but within their lifetimes?

I agree much of Scriptures was penned during the life of the Apostles - and yet - it doesn't follow that even with those letters available that everyone KNEW what was "FROM GOD" of those letters. Whether you are conveniently forgeting or just are not aware of, but there were also a number of NON-CANONICAL writings purported to be from Apostles - writings that in some cases "seemed" OK but was in fact theologically astray of what was taught as Apostolic Traditions.

The Bible is no Koran. There is a period of development, both in its writing and in its recognition.

We do take it that it was within their lifetimes. And I would say the written sharing was born of immediate and progressive need. If you for example had miracles being worked through you as the Apostles did you would certainly share that information to confirm the message and the working to others as a bolster of faith pursuits.

But it doesn't follow that witnessing any of this prompted men to record it. We live in the day and age of CNN and instant news. There was no such concern among the typical man of the Mediteranean. The need to write, as it turned out, was because the Apostles were the hierarchy, respected by all. Their writings were authoritative in matters where a local church was at odds or fighting schism.

The Gospel itself was also preached by the Prophets by Christ in them and recorded for our 'mutual' benefit. The fashions and intents of the Prophets were very much aligned with written record. That was part of their patterns. If they spoke something that didn't come to pass, they were under the penalty of death.

???

Paul himself states that there were forgeries of his writings out there...

This was a practiced fact of written recording in the O.T. and I doubt this practice fell far from the tree in the N.T.

It is unlikely that Moses himself wrote the Pentateuch, for example. Most admit that editors have given us the 'final' version of many of the writings of the prophets. Again, there is a period of development in even OT writings - unlikely that they were penned "as it happened". I doubt this practice fell far from the tree in the NT...

Even in Acts we can find that LETTERS were sent out almost immediately concerning attempts to bring Gentiles under the Law.

Agreed. But these were not theological letters, nor were they narratives that attempted to put down for prosperity's sake the teachings of the Christ. I have not said that no one wrote anything. I am saying that what we DO have was not put into writing until much later.

So, how soon did this matter arise? It would seem somewhat 'early' in the events, and yes, letters of determinations and teachings DID go out, early and often. Letters of sending certain men to certain places, letters of introduction, letters of requests. Early church history was far from 'all oral' until the 'later dates.' It's just problematic to prove it from a science or historical point.

Again, there is a difference between the letters you describe and the theological letters of the NT. The Church was not "all oral" in the sense you are speaking. The issue is whether the Church "needed" to dispose of the oral method of teaching. By introducing this "need", one dispenses the need of teachers to teach. Once someone has "writings", apparently, they can just read it all for themselves, sort of like in the 21st century.

The large question is a matter of 'when.' I would maintain that it was fairly early in the process and was a matter of development over time as well. But is it really a matter worth contention? Never. Just a matter of contemplation to me.
I would find no variations. If it was a legit oral matter then it will also be confirmed in writing.

THIS is the problem - that writing "confirms" the oral.

This was not an issue for the first Christians. Nor is it now, if one believes that Christ's Spirit is present STILL in His Church.

regards

 

[smaller]

Your attempt to poison the well is irrelevant. We are talking about history. Historical analysis of events depends upon men, witnesses to the fact. As I said before, "the Spirit told me so" just doesn't work in HISTORICAL analysis.

The Spirit and The Word remain in ONE ACCORD.

Now we move on to the non sequitars. That was never a statement that I or the Church has made. If you knew me better, you would know that I have occasionally posted that God does work outside of ecclesiastical communities, to include Muslims and Hindus and Jews.

We would quickly sidetrack into the 'real' undertones of that particular matter.

Not really relevant other than the observation of Gods Very Real Workings 'apart from' any [self unit] proclaimed 'total authority of Jesus Christ on earth.' God certainly works well outside of ALL total claimed authority. Is there a statement there being made?

This shows an amazing lack of faith in the work of the Spirit. God works through men, that's a fact. What we must be aware of is the limitations of the study of theology and history. There is some intersection by which the mind can accept that the Bible is God's Word, but neither art alone is enough.

There will remain a unique 'transcendence' of the Spirit in relation to 'written events' as a historical capture of print on paper only.

And while historical studies cannot prove that the Bible is the Word of God, there is a plenitude of evidence that we can trust the writers that they related truth and those who heard them believed their words that they spoke for God.

Obviously again the Word works in conjunction with the Spirit. History just can not capture that matter.

LOL! One can see that there was a different motivation for Zacharius to write. Naturally, a priest would be able to read/write, since he had to read from the Sacred Scrolls. But this is a truly far-fetched bit of "evidence" to claim that this proves that it was common to write narratives as they occured. "History" was still a relatively new science in the first century, and very few were dedicated to following the rules that we now take for granted.

I pointed to the matter of the WRITING in that event only to show the WRITING in conjunction with the working and confirmation of the Spirit. WHEN did that happen? Certainly not decades later. It was immediate, at the time, and for specific purposes in showing on many counts. The account of the writing and the Spiritual events that accompanied it was observed later by Luke.

Words of the High Priest were matters of recording as well, on an ongoing scale, as we can see here for example:

John 11:
51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

It is very unlikely that the temple scribes did not capture that fact.

The comparision measure ends up being your own personal opinion. We don't have to go very far to see Sacred Scriptures speaking of "opinions" in a derisive manner.

It is far from a personal opinion to observe that LETTERS were written concerning Gentile matters of LAW and GRACE in Acts 15 or that teachings of the N.T were derived from O.T. scriptures.

Yea, read Galatians 1:9-10. He said "what I say is from God".

You can believe that or not. But it is not self-authenticating. As you well know, many people have "claimed" to have the Spirit leading them, only to lead them and others to spiritual and actual death.

That is exactly 'why' all Word claimants must stand under the Authority Writings that were already in existence. Paul did exactly that.

Yet again, I remind you of the subject - not about the spiritual effects of the said writings, but of their origin. I am not sure why you keep straying away from that.

No, you have factually sidestepped the Acts 15 LETTERS and the meticulous scribes of the O.T.

No, it is theologically-based. Those who are "sola scriptura" inclined would love to see the idea that the Gospels were written in the upper room in the week before Pentecost, while the rest were carefully compiled to become a future "Bible". This bias does not desire to realize that the Word of God can be spread WITHOUT the New Testament. Thus, the need to push the date into the immediate time frame of the very beginning of the Apostolic ministry.

The early immediacy case is made already. See the Acts 15 statement of LETTERS. The Word quickly went out to Gentiles in both Spirit and WRITING as Acts shows.

Again, the anachronistic notion that people are to read their bibles and figure it out for themselves is cut and pasted onto people of the first century, so as to "justify" their own manners.

Oh please. It remains a present job of the Spirit to bring LIFE to any. To say that is only the job of the official handlers is utter nonsense and shows in parroted redundancy of lifeless rituals.

It's only as 'real' as your own 'individual' faith makes of any of it in any case.

Our own conscience must rule. Some of what certain sects hold to is against my conscience and even SINFUL, and therefore I can not agree or participate.

For example I can NOT in good faith condemn other people of faith who have not been 'fully immersed' in baptism as some baptist sects require. To me what they hold as a 'must have' position for salvation and potentially damning those who have not to me IS A DIRE SIN.

I agree much of Scriptures was penned during the life of the Apostles - and yet - it doesn't follow that even with those letters available that everyone KNEW what was "FROM GOD" of those letters.

I bowed to the matter of progressive work as well, as during their lifetimes. This does not eliminate immediacy as the Acts 15 account shows.

Whether you are conveniently forgeting or just are not aware of, but there were also a number of NON-CANONICAL writings purported to be from Apostles - writings that in some cases "seemed" OK but was in fact theologically astray of what was taught as Apostolic Traditions.

The measure of any writing still has to stand up to O.T. scrutiny.

As said earlier, the ONLY logical produce in any given set of partial seeing sinners CAN contain is the reality of their matters and what the scriptures show.

True and TRUTHFUL Apostolic Workings and writings revolved around PARTIAL SIGHT and ADMITTED personal weaknesses.

The Power of God goes HAND IN HAND with those facts of PARTIAL SIGHT, SIN and WEAKNESS, not in Absolute 'MEN'S' Authority.

It is and remains IN WEAKNESS, SIN and admitted PARTIAL SIGHT that the person of faith is LIFTED by Gods Power to this day.

But it doesn't follow that witnessing any of this prompted men to record it.

The Acts 15 LETTERS account is openly apparent and VERY early in the process.

So are the WRITTEN accounts of Israel's SCRIBES, handed down in rehearsed particular generational repetitions of ACCURACY.

These matters were DIRECT MINISTRATIONS of GOD with them.

I admit that what we have are hand me downs. But verifications ABIDE from the written O.T. LAW and PROPHETS as the BASELINE measures.

We live in the day and age of CNN and instant news. There was no such concern among the typical man of the Mediteranean. The need to write, as it turned out, was because the Apostles were the hierarchy, respected by all. Their writings were authoritative in matters where a local church was at odds or fighting schism.

Paul himself states that there were forgeries of his writings out there...

Indeed.

It is unlikely that Moses himself wrote the Pentateuch, for example. Most admit that editors have given us the 'final' version of many of the writings of the prophets. Again, there is a period of development in even OT writings - unlikely that they were penned "as it happened". I doubt this practice fell far from the tree in the NT...

Scribes were attendants to the fathers of faith from the beginning.

And just as unlikely in the O.T. to be recorded at much later dates. Paul declared that the SCRIPTURE, that would be IN WRITING, declared the Gospel to Abraham.

Agreed. But these were not theological letters, nor were they narratives that attempted to put down for prosperity's sake the teachings of the Christ. I have not said that no one wrote anything. I am saying that what we DO have was not put into writing until much later.

There are no original proven writings of any of it. This does not prove the later date writing.

The letters noting the IMMEDIACY and the MANNER are right there to read of in Acts 15. We could look at almost any later record to verify 'the legitimacy of the manner' via content comparison. If we dug we would even find these same matters veiled in the O.T.

Again, there is a difference between the letters you describe and the theological letters of the NT. The Church was not "all oral" in the sense you are speaking.

I've never said that. Quite the opposite. The N.T. teachings were largely base-lined from the O.T. SCRIPTURES they had at the time.

The issue is whether the Church "needed" to dispose of the oral method of teaching. By introducing this "need", one dispenses the need of teachers to teach. Once someone has "writings", apparently, they can just read it all for themselves, sort of like in the 21st century.

Paul penned very accurately that every man must be let to be FULLY CONVINCED in their own MINDS, their own determinations as a matter of their conscience.

Romans 14:5
One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Varying degrees of understanding/light is also a factual showing in the text, even in the Apostles. Doubting Thomas being a classic example. God does work with 'each member' on their individual time frame.
Many could not come to grips with Paul's teachings and still can't. And many others appear to twist them beyond any recognition.

THIS is the problem - that writing "confirms" the oral.

God Himself spoke and commanded very certain men providing to them His Own Words. Those Words were also commanded by God to be INSCRIBED. Those same Words were also ADMINISTERED by Angelic Powers on BOTH sides of the ledgers.

Joshua 8:35
There was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read not before all the congregation of Israel,

Isaiah 8:2
And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah.

Jeremiah 32:10
And I subscribed the evidence,

There is a rich history of O.T. SCRIBES that had been in place and established for CENTURIES. The Book of Moses was brought out and read in the congregation during the rebuilding by Nehemiah in wall dedication ceremonies.

And we know Daniel learned exactly from the INSCRIPTION of JEREMIAH and Daniel himself WROTE the matters of his own life.

This was not an issue for the first Christians. Nor is it now, if one believes that Christ's Spirit is present STILL in His Church.

Even believers in Acts 17 searched out what for themselves? Uh huh. The scriptures.

This is another 'matter of written testimony' that bears 'personal witness.'

Isaiah 59:12
For our transgressions are multiplied before thee, and our sins testify against us: for our transgressions are with us; and as for our iniquities, we know them;

Now, though that be mere INK on PAGE...the fact is also that it is an INTERNAL FACTUAL TESTIMONY that we ALL bear if we are 'in Truth.' The Law as PARABLE being written in the Psalms but not yet understood until the UNVEILING of the matters by the Words of Jesus and the coming of His Spirit to so teach.

Psalm 145:18
The LORD is nigh unto all them that call upon him, to all that call upon him in truth.

There will remain no variation between Word and Spirit. To divide these equates no differently to me than trying to divide God from Jesus Christ. An everyday basic and common heresy.

Acts 5:32
And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

Acts 26:22
Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:

s

 

[Free]

I said 'strong' reasons, remember?

So your fallacious 'appeal to authority' stands, rather than facts. Sad.

When have I made a fallacious appeal to authority? It is only fallacious when the one to whom I appeal isn't a legitimate authority or expert on the subject. In this case, I can appeal to many legitimate experts. If I were to appeal to you to support an early date, that would be fallacious.

I'm going to let it rest there. This is a frivolous discussion.

 

[Asyncritus]

When have I made a fallacious appeal to authority? It is only fallacious when the one to whom I appeal isn't a legitimate authority or expert on the subject. In this case, I can appeal to many legitimate experts. If I were to appeal to you to support an early date, that would be fallacious.

I'm going to let it rest there. This is a frivolous discussion.

I regret to say, it is not.

Your 'authorities' are highly suspect.

The reason many of them give for a late date of the gospels is the existence of the Olivet Prophecy predicting the fall of Jerusalem. Go read Robinson for a comprehensive list.

Being completely unable to swallow the idea that there is such a thing as prophecy, they are compelled by their almost blasphemous preconception to say that Jesus could not have spoken that prediction, and that somebody, after the event, wrote it down as a prophecy.

That position is symptomatic of the higher critical evil that pervades so much of the current theologians' thinking about, and the current dating of the gospels.

Note where it leads and has led them,

1 The gospels COULD NOT have been written before AD 70

2 Therefore the claim that Jesus spoke the Olivet Prophecy is a lie, and the account of it is a forgery

3 Therefore, there must be other forgeries, maybe the whole lot

4 Therefore, the resurrection may also be a forgery and a legend

5 Therefore, your faith in Christ is vain, and you are yet in your sins.

What also astonishes me, is the amazing audacity of these 'critics' who assume that the church was made up of a pack of imbeciles, who would swallow a forgery purporting to be a prophecy.

That for whatever reasons, the forgers were able to forge, and pass off as scriptures, this prophecy, and the dummies who made up the church were so stupid as to accept the forgeries as 'gospel'.

These are the 'authorities' you so uncritically accept.

I ask you again, as a moderator, would you allow such people, with opinions like these, to remain on this forum?