Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roland · 01-10-2006, 04:55 PM

I realize that it is commonly assumed that Mark was written around 70 AD, Matthew and Luke around 80 AD and John around 90 AD.

Yet, I have no idea how bible scholars come up with these dates, especially considering the fact that the first time they are mentioned by name comes with Iranaeus around 170 AD. Thus, I don't really understand what POSITIVE evidence there is for the much earlier dates. It just seems like a matter of convenience for all concerned (although I do realize there are those few passages in which Jesus tells his disciples some of them will not taste death before He returns. That might be one such piece of evidence, I guess).

Johann_Kaspar · 01-10-2006, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roland

commonly assumed

Once upon a time it was "commonly assumed" that the Earth was flat and the sun revolving around the Earth...
There is no piece of evidence as to when exactly they were written before Marcion displayed them. Best guess from internal "evidence" : written by many "authors" over a quite lengthy period of time. Say from 790 to 890 auc.
"Scholars" put dates according to their agenda.

Chris Weimer · 01-10-2006, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johann_Kaspar

Once upon a time it was "commonly assumed" that the Earth was flat and the sun revolving around the Earth...
There is no piece of evidence as to when exactly they were written before Marcion displayed them. Best guess from internal "evidence" : written by many "authors" over a quite lengthy period of time. Say from 790 to 890 auc.
"Scholars" put dates according to their agenda.

790 AUC is too early for the gospels. I'd say at least 824 auc for Mark.

judge · 01-10-2006, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roland

I realize that it is commonly assumed that Mark was written around 70 AD, Matthew and Luke around 80 AD and John around 90 AD.

Yet, I have no idea how bible scholars come up with these dates, especially considering the fact that the first time they are mentioned by name comes with Iranaeus around 170 AD. Thus, I don't really understand what POSITIVE evidence there is for the much earlier dates.

What positive evidence would be expected?

None probably. I mean, what person who lived around 50 a.d. , whose works survive, would be expected to have mentioned them.

No one.

Thus we hazard a guess.

Roland · 01-10-2006, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

What positive evidence would be expected?

None probably. I mean, what person who lived around 50 a.d. , whose works survive, would be expected to have mentioned them.

No one.

Thus we hazard a guess.

I don't know about 50 AD. but I would reasonably expect that Ignatius, Papias, Polycarp and CERTAINLY Justin Martyr would have mentioned them by name. From what I can tell, the guess has no clear basis in reality.

Johann_Kaspar · 01-11-2006, 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

790 AUC is too early for the gospels. I'd say at least 824 auc for Mark.

Not too early for some layers or at least one.

Zeichman · 01-11-2006, 04:30 AM

Given the fragments of John in the early second century CE (125-150), and that it was dependent on the synoptic tradition according to a large minority of scholars, it seems likely that the synoptics were written end of the 1st, beginning of the second century.

jakejonesiv · 01-11-2006, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

Given the fragments of John in the early second century CE (125-150), and that it was dependent on the synoptic tradition according to a large minority of scholars, it seems likely that the synoptics were written end of the 1st, beginning of the second century.

The fragment is too small to assume that it comes from the full GJohn in the form that we know.

Jake Jones

Zeichman · 01-11-2006, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

The fragment is too small to assume that it comes from the full GJohn in the form that we know.

Jake Jones

Given that it's from the passion narrative, we can know it comes from a state at which the community gained access to the synoptics, whether it's from the second to last or last stage is not especially significant.

Chris Weimer · 01-11-2006, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johann_Kaspar

Not too early for some layers or at least one.

What "layers" do you have in mind?

01-10-2006, 04:55 PM	#1
Roland Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: California Posts: 748	Positive evidence for 1st century dates? I realize that it is commonly assumed that Mark was written around 70 AD, Matthew and Luke around 80 AD and John around 90 AD. Yet, I have no idea how bible scholars come up with these dates, especially considering the fact that the first time they are mentioned by name comes with Iranaeus around 170 AD. Thus, I don't really understand what POSITIVE evidence there is for the much earlier dates. It just seems like a matter of convenience for all concerned (although I do realize there are those few passages in which Jesus tells his disciples some of them will not taste death before He returns. That might be one such piece of evidence, I guess).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-11-2006, 04:30 AM	#7
Zeichman Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: USA Posts: 562	Given the fragments of John in the early second century CE (125-150), and that it was dependent on the synoptic tradition according to a large minority of scholars, it seems likely that the synoptics were written end of the 1st, beginning of the second century.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.