vid

This thread is inspired by Roger Pearse backing pre-70AD dating of gospels, particulary here (Dating GMark) and lately here (Dead Sea Scrolls - What Do They Prove?). So far, arguments I saw supported post-70AD date. Maybe it is because I mostly have read "atheist" sites... but that could be caused by lack of "well-researched" sites refuting common atheist misconceptions (RPs site, tektonics.org, anything else?).

So... what is the evidence for gospels being pre-70AD? (I don't mean evidence in strict sense, I'd like anything that points to gospels prior to to 70AD, of course).

In first linked post, Roger Pearse poined out that Acts don't mention destruction of temple. In second post, he seems to be drawing on Papias account cited by Eusebius.

As for the not-mentioning-temple, would it be satisfactory explanation that Luke is LATE enough to not mention it, as many suggest (eg. 50 years later, etc...)?

For Papias' "Mark = Memoirs of Peters", that one is IMO not beyond suspicion to be the same thing as todays Mark (I can't understand how someone would describe todays Mark as "sayings of jesus" after reading it).

For supporters of pre-70: How do you explain some pretty clear links to temple destruction: real prophecies, or later additions? How do you explain Luke-Jospehus parallels, chance?

Hopefully, his will clear position of pre70s-ers to me.

Ben C Smith

Papias called the Matthean gospel the oracles (logia); but he characterized the Marcan gospel as containing the things either said or done by the Lord. Does that sound better?

Ben.

bacht

The simplest explanation for omitting references to the fall of the temple would be to avoid hostility from the Romans. Jews were already unpopular for not participating in pagan sacrifices or emperor worship.

The formation of private associations was not encouraged afaik, so Christian churches might have been suspect in the eyes of government.

judge

Luke does mention the temple. Luke 21

1As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. 2He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins.[a] 3"I tell you the truth," he said, "this poor widow has put in more than all the others. 4All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on."

5Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, 6"As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down."

Roland

I always find it intriguing that the very same people who tell us we can never use the dreaded "argument from silence" then turn right around and use it to give an early date to Acts and, by extension, the gospels. By that logic, the gospels would all have to have been written before Jesus' ascension on Pentecost and the Gospel of Mark would have to have been written on Easter morning since it doesn't include any post-resurrection appearances.

The fact that the gospels and Acts aren't really attested to until the middle or late 2nd Century helps butress the argument that a pre-70 date is way too early for any of them.

Roger Pearse

It's certainly the same type of argument, but a rather more limited version of it used purely for histories which generally tend to be written up to the time of the writer, unless they say otherwise. But yes, it can give the same false positive, used injudiciously.

Do we feel the same about all the classical literature not mentioned until 1500? Such as Hermias?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith

There is also the epistle to Diognetus, obviously an ancient Christian apology, but never mentioned by any church father and attested only in a manuscript from century XIII or XIV, and even the manuscript is now lost to us.

Ben.

Roger Pearse

We always have to remember that 99% of ancient literature is lost, which of course means we have only 1% of the references that could exist, presuming everyone knew the work -- which, in the age of hand copying, is improbable.

JoeWallack

JW:
There's no question that the authorial intent of "Mark", the original Gospel, is to discredit the witness of Peter, James El-all. The question is whether "Mark" was intended as Entertainment or Theology. I think it was intended as Entertainment, written in Rome to a sophisticated and cultural audience as another Greek Tragedy by the hands of a master tekton. I doubt there would have been anyone in Israel at the time even capable of writing such a story.

To borrow one of Andrew's ifs though, if "Mark" was written as Theology, than the Theology of discrediting Peter, James El-all (as Paul boasts) is much better if they are recent to the audience (pre) rather than ancient (post 70) to the audience. This is quite possible and while there is no direct evidence for "Mark" in the 1st century the explanation could be that "Mark" was not accepted by OCD until the Forged ending in the 2nd century.

The problem with this though is that "Mark" looks like a Reaction to the claim of Peter, James El-all being historical witness to Jesus and as we are seeing in The Tale Wagging The Dogma. Which "Mark" Wrote "Mark"? A Dear John Letter no one was claiming this historical witness in the 1st century. The first claimed historical witness is Papias writing after 116. "Mark" may have been a Reaction to Papias' claim which would make the traditional Christian assertian of relationship Bauckwards and thus The Tale Wagging The Dogma

You know what they say, just like cops have the best dope, counter-missionaries have the best Apologies.



Joseph

PaulK

I'd say that the changes in Lukes version of the Olivet Discourse (Luke 21) compared to Matthew and Mark point pretty clearly to a date after the destruction of the Temple. And if Luke is later then so is Acts.