Shinobi

I'ts stated that the gospels were written about 70+ years after Jesus supposedly existed. I'd like to know how it is known when the Gospels were written.

Kryten

One way that historians and archeaologists date ancient texts is through references made to them by other authors. The Gospels were not quoted until approximately 100 years after the supposed death of Jesus. It was around this time that the human figure appeard on decorative crucifixes. Before this time the crucifix was made with a lamb nailed to the cross.

As we see both here and on other forums, religious or not, Christians love to quote the Bible. With this in mind it does seem rather odd that ancient Christians would not have bothered quoting the Gospels. It seems even more unlikely that they would not even have mentioned Jesus Christ! The idea of Jesus as the head of Christianity seems to have been a late 1st century idea.

Shinobi

Sounds pretty strightforward. Thanks.

Diogenes the Cynic

Some other methods used for the dating of NT books include dependency on prior literature for which dating is known or for which at least a minimum date can be established. Matthew, for instance, is dependent on Mark and Mark contains a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem. That means Mark had to be written sometime during or after the Jewish-Roman War (66-70 CE) and Matthew had to have been written after Mark (with a few years thrown in for Mark to circulate and get copied enough for Matthew to get a hold of it). Luke used Mark too but a strong case can also be made that Luke knew Josephus and that bumps Luke back to the mid 90's at the earliest.

Historical anachronisms help too. for example, John mentions the expulsion of Christians from the synagogues (although it incorrectly places it during the life of Jesus). This puts us in the 90's for John.

Then there are historical references to things like gnosticism, theological development and linguistic characteristics which can also help narrow the dating.

Vorkosigan

The first major way of dating the gospels is by datable references to external events. The basic one is the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE. There are other, minor ones. For example, in Luke there is a reference to the Legio Italica (possibly) which did not reach the East until shortly before the Jewish War, it was formed under Nero in 66. In Mark the Gerasene Demoniac (Mk 5:1-20) seems to be a reference to two possible legions, mostly likely Legio X Fretensis, whose presence in the East can be dated. Weaker references are to practices. The term "Rabbi" for teacher seems to have been a usage of post-70 Jerusalem. Similarly, some argue that round stones did not become used on local tombs until after 70. Archaeology plays a role but only a minor one; in the Gospels Jesus is popping in and out of synagogues, but they are essentially a post-70 phenomenon in Galilee.

The second major way is by literary dependence. The dependence of Luke and Matt on Mark and Luke's dependence on the datable publication of Josephus Antiquities has already been mentioned. Similarly Mark may depend on the same work or perhaps on Josephus' Life. Mark also seems to depend on Gal, 1 Cor, and Romans, at least, and thus postdates them, whatever date you want to give them.

Of the possible range into which they may fall, that depends on the earliest possible outside cite. Ignatius, traditionally given as 105, appears to cite Matthew (although I believe those letters are all forged.) More reasonably, Justin Martyr in mid second century cites several documents under the rubric of the memoirs of the apostles.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Greetings,

I find it quite amusing the way Diogenes so glibly restates here all the common false myths of NT scholarship... They are all here, and they make no logical sense whatsoever.

It's all a pile of bunk! :roll eyes:

Really?

Hello? There's no logic here at all...

So if I write a story about WWI, for example, then I must have been an eyewitness, right?

_If_ Mt was based on Mk!

Really?

No problem here. Lk, as the earliest gospel, may well have dated to the mid 90's.

No problem here either. Jn may well be 2c.

And put _all the gospels_ well into the 2c...

In my view, Lk was the earliest gospel, on which the others were all based. The gospel making started in earnest ca 100. And continued all through the 2c.

But let's also keep in mind that our canonical gospels are all 19th century texts, as based on 4th and 5th century Egyptian Greek manuscripts.

This is the reality, folks. Disregard it at your own peril.

Yuri

CanoeMan

No, I think he means that you must have been writing it at a time after the war actually began. As in, you couldn't have written it in 1883 or whenever.

Diogenes the Cynic

Did I say anything about eyewitnesses?

I'm saying that if a historical event is referenced at all in a piece of writing then the piece had to have been written after that event. I didn't say it had to be a witness or that it had to be written immediately after the event.
I wasn't aware that anyone seriously disputed that anymore.
On what evidence do you base this rather bold hypothesis?
So all extant Bibles printed prior the the 19th century are forgeries? Including the KJV? The Vulgate? I'm not sure I follow you here. Could you please explicate?

offa

how about some references?

offa

Yuri Kuchinsky

Fine, Diogenes.

So, on this basis, we can only say that Mk was written some time after the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans (70 CE). It could have been written any time after that.

Among the Synoptic specialists (which is quite a small sub-specialty in NT studies), lots of scholars dispute the priority of the canonical Mk. Some advocate the priority of Mt, some of Lk, and some, like Boismard, advocate the more complex theories of dependence.

I've got lots and lots of evidence.

Here's quite a bit to start with,

NT Scandals and Controversies (2002)
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/cvers.htm

Sure I can explicate.

What I'm trying to say is that the scholars are trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

They don't have the original Mk -- whenever this original was produced. They don't even have the second edition. They don't even have the third edition...

What they do have is a 19th century edition of Mk, as based on 4th and 5th century Egyptian Greek manuscripts. These 4th and 5th century manuscripts probably represent something like the 5th or the 6th edition of Mk -- and these old manuscripts all happen to disagree with each other in thousands of places.

So what did Westcott and Hort, these fathers of the "modern" Greek NT, do? They did a lot of picking-and-choosing among their beloved 4th and 5th century Egyptian Greek manuscripts. Their editorial choices produced what most Christians in the world are now using for their NT.

But who said that their editorial choices should be the law of the land?

Don't you see? This is all arbitrary and subjective!

Now, of course, prior to Westcott and Hort, everyone was just using the Textus Receptus/Majority text/Byzantine text/KJV. There was very little subjectivity there, because this was, essentially, the traditional text of the gospels, as preserved by the Church through the centuries.

But, by now, every major denomination has abandoned the KJV, so it's no longer a big player in the market. In the academic circles, KJV is virtually non-existent. But I'm saying that all this was a big mistake.

The bottom line here is that we just don't have the original Mk, Mt, Lk, and Jn. Therefore modern Synoptic scholarship is just a shell game, nothing more. They are saying that their 19th century Mk is "the original Mk", and that this 19th century Mk was the source of their 19th century Mt and Lk! So the whole thing is really quite meaningless...

My solution of the Synoptic problem? None of these gospels is the earliest, that's what!

Cheers,

Yuri