FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-08-2001, 08:42 AM   #1
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post Generally accepted dates?

I was wondering if there was anywhere I could find generally accepted dates (or range of dates) for the New Testament writings AND generally accepted dates for the apocryphal and Gnostic Gospels. Can anyone help me out? So far what I have found for the 4 gospels range from about 60-140 AD... it just doesn't seem like I can find any 2 people who agree. The dates that I have seen for the the apochryphal and Gnostic gospels are even more vague (the only information I can find is regarding the Nag Hammandi)
 
Old 07-08-2001, 10:42 AM   #2
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Try Here: http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm
 
Old 07-08-2001, 10:56 AM   #3
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs up

Or try the Gnostic Friends Network.

Even if you don't find what you're looking for, I guarantee you'll be entertained.
 
Old 07-08-2001, 03:16 PM   #4
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~sl...rk_mcfall.html

If you scroll down to the middle, there is a huge list of dates for various books, with lists of scholars and their dates.

Michael
 
Old 07-08-2001, 08:04 PM   #5
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

I have a web site here that may be of use.

http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/
 
Old 07-09-2001, 04:11 AM   #6
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Thankyou for that rather amusing link Foxhole Atheist. Its always refreshing to read revisionist history.

On a more serious note,
Peterkirby, your dates for much of the cannon look extremely late. Don't you think that it might be wise in the interests of impartiality to point this out to the otherwise gullible readers?

[This message has been edited by Tercel (edited July 09, 2001).]
 
Old 07-09-2001, 06:21 AM   #7
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Thankyou for that rather amusing link Foxhole Atheist. Its always refreshing to read revisionist history.

I'm curious. What aspects of that link would you consider "revisionist?"

On a more serious note, Peterkirby, your dates for much of the cannon look extremely late. Don't you think that it might be wise in the interests of impartiality to point this out to the otherwise gullible readers?

I'll save Peter the waste of time responding to Tercel. He's got more important things to do.

Kirby gives ranges. Lots of scholars do that. Which particular dates do you find so "extremely" late?

Michael
 
Old 07-09-2001, 06:45 AM   #8
Bede
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
I'm curious. What aspects of that link would you consider "revisionist?"
</font>
Well, that Diocletian became Emporer in 80AD, for a start. That Constantine fixed Christmas to 25/12. That he was still on the throne in 367AD. Can't be bothered to read any more. It's all very well trying to re-educate us ignorant Christians but it really would help if he got his basic facts right.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason
 
Old 07-11-2001, 12:17 AM   #9
Tercel
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,315
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by turtonm:
I'm curious. What aspects of that link would you consider "revisionist?"
The majority of it.
Have you actually read it yourself Michael? If you have and didn't see any problems then...
Bede's given a few specific examples already so I won't bother.

Quote:
Kirby gives ranges. Lots of scholars do that. Which particular dates do you find so "extremely" late?
Scholars do give ranges, but when doing so they normally make it abundently clear why they think that, what other scholars think and why they think the others are wrong. Kirby simply gives a table with dates.
Which is fine, but in such a case I would expect Kirby to say "These are my opinon (Or scholar X's) of the dates", or if he doesn't have that I would expect to see generally accepted / majority dates: I don't.

You posted a list of some dates yourself Michael, you don't need me to tell you that in many cases Kirby's earliest limit is later than the latest date given by any scholar in your list or only just inside it.
Tercel is offline  
Old 07-11-2001, 07:18 PM   #10
rodahi
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Weslaco, TX, USA
Posts: 137
Post

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm curious. What aspects of that link would you consider "revisionist?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bede: Well, that Diocletian became Emporer in 80AD, for a start. That Constantine fixed Christmas to 25/12. That he was still on the throne in 367AD. Can't be bothered to read any more. It's all very well trying to re-educate us ignorant Christians but it really would help if he got his basic facts right.

1. The writer wrote Diocletian when he meant Domitian.
2. It is uncertain when Christians began to celebrate Jesus' birthday on December 25. One thing is certain, though, no one knows when Jesus was born.
3. The date 367 CE is a typo. The writer meant 337 CE.

These minor errors do not detract from the general accuracy of the article.

rodahi
rodahi is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:50 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.