neilgodfrey

would you like to explain?

Not disputing, but would you like to explain why in your mind the assumption is ludicrous?

Are you suggesting Matthew copied Petronius?

Roger Pearse

IMHO this is to take a speculative theory far too seriously. Luke-Acts cannot sensibly be later than 62.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

neilgodfrey

Except that in the case of the fall of the temple/Jerusalem it was clear to anyone post 70 (even more so post 135) that the prediction had come true. Any literary reminder surely would be a bit superfluous -- how much more effectual if an audience can see for itself without literary prompting?

Roger Pearse

Chris is quite right. (I'm not sure that I know what the Petronian question is, tho).

I think that if we just state the argument -- that any text must have been written shortly before the first text in which it happens to be mentioned (and does the same argument apply to that text too? ) -- then that seems to me to be the same as to refute it.

The idea relies on the reader not knowing much about how stuff has come down to us, which of course most of us don't (although one or two of us in this forum are rather interested in the subject). 99% of ancient literature is lost (so Pietro Bembo, backed by N.G.Wilson). Hermias isn't mentioned at all in the surviving texts of antiquity, for instance. Macarius Magnes is only mentioned once in a 6th century text. And so on it goes. Ancient texts are not widely referenced by other ancient texts as a rule. It's just the way it is. (A long list would doubtless be convincing, but like most people I don't make up such lists unless I need to).

Since we only have 10 second century authors, and mainly apologetic texts happen to have survived, arguments from what these don't say are risky. For instance Justin Against Marcion (cf. Iren. AH IV.6:2 made use of it; Eus. HE IV.11:8ff) is lost, for instance. This would certainly have had a lot to say about Luke! Likewise his anti-heretical treatise (Just. 1 Apol. 26) But people then solemnly talk about Justin "not saying things", in his measly three surviving works, as if this was evidence.

There are reasons why our 2nd century texts are biased in favour of apologies, which few perhaps know.

By the 10th century, the anti-heretical works were long obsolete, full of references to long-dead heresies of interest to no-one. The theological works were all rather amateurish by comparison with 'modern' (i.e. 5th century+) theological texts, stuffed with material about the theotokos and Aristotelean dialectic. The apologies against paganism were also obsolete, although the Byzantine state still had pagans to the north, in Russia.

But Archbishop Arethas of Caesarea happened to be interested in early apologetics, being something of a scholar, and he arranged for someone to copy a bunch for him. The so-called Arethas codex is extant, and is the main source for much of what it contains.

So our view of 2nd century writers is skewed by a historical accident, and consequently arguing what they do not say is hopelessly and hog-whimperingly unwise.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

I think so too. As an argument it's merely an inversion of the theological argument from prophecy. Indeed it's an obvious ploy to unwind that argument -- by turning it on its head, the same data points against authenticity of the claims, rather than for it. I see no reason why we couldn't just reverse it again; leaving nothing.

Luke must be, since he finishes Acts in 61 with huge amounts to happen in 62, 64, 68 and 70 AD all gone unmentioned. He uses at least a draft of Mark, which must thus have existed in some form. The fathers tell us that both were in Rome at that time, so there's no real surprise. They also disagree about when Mark was completed; either when Peter died or after. It could quite possibly be anywhere from 64-70. It's hard to see it later. Matthew in its current form (the mention by Papias of an aramaic form should make us wary) is closely related to Luke and Mark and must be from the same period -- say the 3rd quarter of the 1st century. We can see this by looking at the very different-looking John -- clearly a later text --, which the data places later, in the 4th quarter of the century, say around 85-90, when John was an old man, and indeed suggests that he saw the others (he probably did). Matthew must precede this time, and probably does so by 20 years just like the others. If we see the synoptics all composed over a period of 10 years, and then John 15+ years later, that would explain the change in tone and approach.

There seems no convincing reason to me to date any of these texts at any other point. Why do it? (Other than for theological reasons, hem hem). What other data is there?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Steven Avery

Richard H. Anderson wrote a paper that pegs Luke at about 40 AD, written to Theophilus the high priest, while Acts is right before the 62 you mention above, written to the same Theophilus (no longer high priest, however his son held the position around that time). It is quite interesting to see various linkages between the folks referenced in the NT when you shed the pseudo-scholastic baggage of late dating, unsupported interpolations to match doctrine, fatigue to match doctrine, denying the possibility of prophecy and such. Such baggage makes it very difficult to see the rather obvious, as alluded to in the OP, the gospels predated the destruction of the Temple (leaving aside for now how easy or difficult such a prophecy would be to make).

As for the scholars who hold an early dating view, there are I believe 5+ modern works that take an early dating viewpoint. Whether they hold unambiguously to a pre-70 date for all the NT (with the possible exception of Revelation) I do not know offhand. Personally I think that such a pre-70 NT date is fully consistent with the evidences. I noticed a few counter-attempts above, and I grant I am not going into them, however they did not seem to have a lot of pizazz.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

The first person who clearly knew substantial amounts of gospel literature was Justin Martyr. That should be the starting point of our investigation.

Irenaeus acknowledges that Marcion distributed a gospel which appeared to be a reduced form of the gospel of Luke of Irenaeus's time, so that should put the written gospel process a little before Justin's time.

The question would be now, how do you get earlier than say 140CE? That seems to be the challenge in my eyes. This is where people start parading Papias whose only existence these days is to try to justify a gospel tradition earlier. We've had a lot of discussion about Papias and the difficulty of trying to introduce the Papias traditions as though they had historical value.

And I notice some people mention Acts of all things, a document with extremely difficult history. How does one justify dating that text?

Anyway, gospels, before 140CE?


spin

Roger Pearse

But doesn't such an early date have various problems? We can see from long passages which are verbally identical that Luke has Mark before him, or a draft not far from what we have. Mark is based on Peter's preaching in Rome, and may not have been published until after his death in 64 (so the fathers -- pardon me if I haven't the ref. before me). This suggests that Mark cannot have achieved that form much before then. Therefore Luke cannot predate it by much either. And anyway, isn't the long stay in Rome of Paul's imprisonment a natural point to compose the works?

Luke also refers to accounts by a previous generation in Luke 1. If he wrote in AD 40, there were no previous generations. In AD 60 there is.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

gregor

Can luke be as early as 60? Not, of course, if L/A is reliant upon Josephus (ref. Mason). see http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...djosephus.html

[It seems that these points arise from the ashes about every 9 months].

And it's ironic how an argument from silence is so pliable.

Larsguy47

It doesn't matter since both Paul and John, the largest contributors never died. A group of Christians were chosen never to die until Christ returned, which was to be close to 2000 years later. Obviously this gave the original Christians a chance to sort of "shepherd" the Bible and the NT into it's present form. So it really doesn't matter how old the gospels were actually, they were always under the secretive but relative control of the original congegation members.

Now some people just can't believe this, but the Bible does teach this. IF it is true then it would impact upon the reliability and authenticity of the NT.

LG47