Amaleq13

It may be your opinion that the scholars who support that conclusion are the "best" but even the Catholic Study Bible acknowledges modern scholarship dates this text "shortly after" 70CE.

Even accepting the traditional preference of shortly before 70CE, one can hardly call predicting the fall of Jerusalem at that time miraculous.

Orthodox_Freethinker

There are diverse opinions in the Catholic Church on New Testament scholarship. What matters is which one is the most well-evidenced. From what I've been seen, a later date is given by scholars who prefer not to believe that Christ could accurately predict the future. I've read a great deal of the skeptical criticisms of the Gospels and much of it spews solely from their own philosophical presuppositions.

Jesus was able to prophecize the fall of the temple 40 years before the fact, knowing that it would happen within His generation, and that somehow is not miraculous?

Peace.

Jack the Bodiless

All four canonical gospels were originally anonymous, we do not know if they were written by these people. This tradition of authorship itself dates from late in the 2nd century IIRC.

At least we know who wrote Star Wars.
There is no "Book of Jesus" in the Bible.

Amaleq13

Yes and the honest opinions recognize the position the majority of scholars take on a particular subject. Please do not confuse this with an argument from authority or an argument from numbers. I am not claiming that the majority of scholars are correct in their shared conclusion, I am simply noting the nature of that majority opinion and noting that, contrary to your implied assertion (ie "best"), you are supporting a minority position. The Catholic Study Bible is honest enough to recognize that the majority opinion of modern scholarship often differs with the traditional views.

You have it backwards. Those who embrace the minority position tend to start from faith-based assumptions rather than treating the texts like any other ancient writings.

This question ignores the evidence we are discussing and attempts to change the subject to an unsubstantiated assertion. The range of dates given for the authorship of Mark does not extend to "40 years before the fact" but only shortly before the end of the war (ie late 60's). As I already said, even taking the earliest year of the range there is nothing miraculous about the ability of the author to predict the fall of Jerusalem.

You have a great deal of work ahead of you to establish your assertion above as even likely to be true. There is a vast difference between speculating about the date of authorship for a given text and asserting that the text reliably describes historical events.

And, before you start repeating the tradition that Mark's author was Peter's secretary, it is important to note that even our old buddy the Catholic Study Bible cautions against assuming too much "Petrine influence" in the authorship of Mark and acknowledges that modern scholarship has found little reason to accept this tradition as reliable.

Orthodox_Freethinker

That's false.

I hope you aren't getting your information on New Testament scholarship from Internet Infidels.

"All early tradition connects the Second Gospel with two names, those of St. Mark and St. Peter, Mark being held to have written what Peter had preached. We have just seen that this was the view of Papias and the elder to whom he refers. Papias wrote not later than about A.D. 130, so that the testimony of the elder probably brings us back to the first century, and shows the Second Gospel known in Asia Minor and attributed to St. Mark at that early time..."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09674b.htm

"Ancient ecclesiastical writers are at variance as to the date of the composition of the First Gospel. Eusebius (in his Chronicle), Theophylact, and Euthymius Zigabenus are of opinion that the Gospel of Matthew was written eight years, and Nicephorus Callistus fifteen years, after Christ's Ascension--i. e. about A.D. 38-45. According to Eusebius, Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew when he left Palestine. Now, following a certain tradition (admittedly not too reliable), the Apostles separated twelve years after the Ascension, hence the Gospel would have been written about the year 40-42, but following Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, v, 2), it is possible to fix the definitive departure of the Apostles about the year 60, in which event the writing of the Gospel would have taken place about the year 60-68. St Irenæus is somewhat more exact concerning the date of the First Gospel, as he says: "Matthew produced his Gospel when Peter and Paul were evangelizing and founding the Church of Rome, consequently about the years 64-67."..."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm

The Emergence of the New Testament Canon
Daniel F. Lieuwen
http://www.orthodox.net/faq/canon.htm

The Gospels contain the words of Jesus.

Peace.

Julian

No, that's true. You cannot argue this point using the Catholic Encyclopedia. The CE is drawing your conclusions for you. If you read it carefully, you will notice that the evidence they cite, which is accurate, does not support their conclusions.
I looked through this and wondered what your point was. Could you clarify?

I cannot speak for Jack, but I get my scholarship from scholars, you get yours from the church. Hmmm, that should make you think...
You have no way of knowing this. It is pure speculation. The gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. Now maybe they knew eyewitnesses, maybe not. Maybe there was a Jesus and he said some of those things, may not. No way to know. We do know that many of the sayings are ripped of from the Cynics (excluding the eschatological material.)

The bottom line is that the gospels were anonymous and the names attached to them today are based on 2nd century conjecture. Read the hard evidence cited in your own links and you will see that it is true.

Julian

Amaleq13

I have to agree with Julian that there does not appear to be anything in this linked document that supports your assertion.

Orthodox_Freethinker

The same conclusions can be found in many other sources given that it is the mainstream position of Biblical scholarship. Papias, for example, did not write in the late second century.

"About his date, which is important in connection with his credibility, there is Irenaeus' statement, later in the 2nd century, that Papias was "a hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp, a man of old time." If Polycarp was in fact born not later than AD 69 (see entry Polycarp), then there may be no reason to depend on a further, but disputed tradition, that Papias shared in the martyrdom of Polycarp, (ca AD 155) In sum, the fact that Irenaeus thought of Papias as Polycarp's contemporary and "a man of the old time," together with the affinity between the religious tendencies described in the fragment from Papias's Preface quoted by Eusebius and those reflected in the Epistles of Polycarp and Ignatius, all point to his having flourished in the first quarter of the 2nd century."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias


Matthew was an Apostle of Christ, Mark a disciple of Peter, Luke a disciple of Paul and a historian and John the closest Apostle of Christ. Those who disagree provide idle speculation, unsupported by anyone in the early church era. If the authorship of the Gospels were questionable, someone would have done so.

Peace.

Orthodox_Freethinker

It's a good place to start in understanding the history surrounding the New Testament.

Peace.

Julian

I haven't run a poll so I couldn't say. It doesn't matter, however, the facts are still the facts. None of them support the conclusions, it remains speculation.
You are making claims here, provide the evidence. Not speculation, but evidence. You cannot change the fact that that is merely second century conjecture. Show that it isn't and I will gladly change my mind...

Julian