Originally Posted by FatherMithras

Actually, this is the overwhelming consensus of all modern scholars. True not all agree, but the majority do.

It's nice of you to post individual findings, but you're entirely ignorant of the professional consensus, anyone wanna give him some links?

Originally Posted by Richbee

I appreciate that liberal scholars would say 70 A.D. - 100 A.D.

In contrast, I was quoting:

William Albright, one of the greatest archaeologists of the 20th century, declared, “We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80.” He also states, “Every book of the New Testament [excluding Luke who was possibly not Jewish] was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and eighties of the first century A.D.”[26] Finally, he asserts, “Only modern scholars who lack both historical method and perspective” could come to a conclusion of much later authorship of the New Testament.[27]

http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap6_foot.asp#26

Originally Posted by apologetics press

Dating in Archaeology: Challenges to Biblical Credibility
by Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div.


Printer version | Email this article


[EDITOR’S NOTE: This is the second of a two-part series on “Dating in Archaeology.” Part I is titled “Dating in Archaeology: Radiocarbon and Tree-Ring Dating.”]

“Biblical historical data are accurate to an extent far surpassing the ideas of any modern critical students, who have consistently tended to err on the side of hypercriticism” (1949, Albright, p. 229).

“Archaeologists now generally agree that their discoveries...have produced a new consensus about the formation of ancient Israel that contradicts significant parts of the biblical version” (Strauss, 1988).

These statements represent the conflicting messages that characterize the field of archaeology. In Albright’s era, archaeologists’ interpretations of field excavations ordinarily corroborated biblical information. It was common for prominent archaeologists such as Nelson Glueck to confidently affirm: “...no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference” (1959, p. 31).

Prior to the 1970s, interpretations of archaeological explorations generally heightened the Bible’s credibility (Davis, 1993, 19[2]:54-59). Since then, however, the amiable relationship between archaeology and the Bible has deteriorated dramatically. It is commonplace for the new generation of archaeologists to spurn the historical credibility of the biblical narrative (see Dever, 1990, 16[3]:52-62).

Archaeology, therefore, presents a challenge to those who contend for the integrity of the Scriptures. How are we to respond? On what basis do many archaeologists repudiate the historicity of the biblical text, and how reliable are their methods? To answer these and other questions we must have a basic understanding of the science of archaeology.

Originally Posted by post tenebras lux

thanks.

Well I googled for William Albright, but that only turned up a musician - so I guess he ain't all that 'famous'. But then I googled again adding 'archeologist' and here's the first site I came across -> yep, apologetics press. And what do the good gentlemen say? From the top:Nuff said?

Originally Posted by Richbee

I'm not sure where you're going with this?

Do you have any weight of evidence to reveal that modern critics or "skeptics" have more credibility?

I have a assembled a short list if idiots and so..........

Originally Posted by Richbee

Interestingly enough, though, modern archaeology, and ancient history do verify much of the historical panoply of the Gospels.

Originally Posted by Richbee

In the case of Peter, his words stand for themselves. Nearly 50% of all history is recorded by only one eyewitness.