Ecrasez L'infame

Usually, minus 754. The "extra year" (The Romans assumed Rome was founded in what we would call 753 BC) is because there's no year zero - our system goes straight from 1 BC to AD 1.

But an easy way to remember is just to take off 750. All these figures are plus or minus 5 years anyway.

Regards

Robert

hatsoff

I think what this discussion is missing is trust in traditions. There are no specific texts which place the any of the Gospels in the first century, no, but texts are not the end of evidence. We have traditions which existed as early as the second century that these Gospels were written in the first century. I don't doubt them.

guy_683930

[MOD]
Speculation about the motivations and/or religious stance of another poster is not appropriate.
[/MOD]

Toto

Why would you trust these "traditions?"

For that matter, are you sure that there were traditions? Why do Christians who wrote before the end of the 2nd century not reference any of the gospels?

andrewcriddle

See http://www.ntgateway.com/weblog/2005...te-of-p52.html and associated links.

Andrew Criddle

mens_sana

We know that the books of the NT underwent considerable editing, clear up to the time of Erasmus for the Johannine Comma, so, at a minimum, Papius is telling us of something written by Mark, something written by Matthew. A number of scholars think that Papius' Matthean reference was to a sayings collection, like Q. The Markan account, at a minimum, is a jumbled collection of "episodes."

There is a good argument in <Helmut> Koester's Ancient Christian Gospels that Justin Martyr knew of several "Memoirs of the Apostles," and that he quoted from Matthew and Luke, once from Mark. An interesting point here is that Justin (d.165) apparently knew nothing of the Gospel of John, although by the time of the Muratorian Canon (200 CE), all the Gospels were known and authorship had been attributed.

mikem

Scholars have usually dated the gospels from internal evidence - that is by extrapolating form the contents of the gospel to determine the "sitz im leben" of the community being written for, the situation in which the community found itself. So it has been assumed that Mark was written in Rome, prior to 70 AD, when Jerusalem was routed by Titus and the temple destroyed. It is said that Mark 13 is a prediction of something nasty happening, although the destruction of Jerusalem is not actually predicted. Actually, Mark 13:2 seems quite specific to me, so it seems that the author probably knew about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

Thias being the case, Mark was written after 70 AD, and since Luke and Matthew incorporate hughe chunks of Mark, they too must have reached their final form even later than Mark. So the long and the short of it is that the gospels were written after 70 AD, and before the first reference to Mark and Matthew by Papias as recorded by Eusebius, about 140 AD. So a second century date seems not unlikely.

The Admiral

I had never heard of auc til just now. Personally, I would like to see a scientific calendar. One based on the earliest known history no matter where it comes from. Didn't the Aztecs or Incas of Mexico or South America have a calendar that went back nearly 10,000 years?

The Admiral

Johann_Kaspar

Are you assuming that Yeshuah was an historical man? I do not know. It is only an hypothesis. More important is the ideological content of the gospels. But who cares? And especially who understands after 19 centuries of xian corruption? Usually people care about contradictions in the texts only to points how stupid the xians are to believe those texts. The contradictions are quite useful for their point to the successive editions of the text, according to the successive historical circumstances and events.
There are several layers in the gospels. 1) the "teachings", 2) the birth 3) the crucifixion. And several more layers at least in 1) and 3) and a lot of editing. No "copyright" then. Except the little apocalypse almost nothing can be sure about the dates. It is why it is an everlasting question and quarrel.
The "death" of Yeshuah could happen between 779 and 789, if it happened at all. Nothing for sure.
"Paul" never existed as an historical man, it is a literature fiction/invention. If there can be a doubt about Yeshuah, there is very little doubt about that one.
About "Thomas" here too, there is not ONE date, but several. Several editions, different "authors". Over time. But the interest is in the fact that it preserved the raw sayings of a teacher or a school or a Jewish party. Who knows?

mens_sana

I've seen dates for Mark all the way from 60 to 75, but seldom any reasoning behind this dating. I get the impression that the date is tied to the "Little Apocalypse". Did it, or did it not refer to the destruction of Jerusalem? Was it an interpolation? Or was it anything Jesus actually said?

Needless to say, those that are sure Jesus was prophesying the destruction of the temple will offer a pre-70 date. However, why does this have to be anything more than an ordinary hell-&-damnation, tent revival sermon. The Essenes certainly had nothing good to say about the Temple. So it would fit with a preacher of the imminent apocalypse and a pre-70 date.

For the Jesus Seminar, the apocalyptic aspects are all later (post-70) developments, in Thomas as well as Mark. I have a suspicion that those who do not see Jesus as an apocalyptic preacher, prophesying the imminent coming of the kingdom, don't want to deal with the idea of the historical Jesus as a "failed prophet" — despite a fairly common denial of Jesus' divinity.