Originally Posted by MarkB4

Aradia - these are serious issues and when I say that I believe in miracles I don't expect you or anyone else to respond without an uncritical eye. The thing I keep hearing is an appeal to "most scholars" (you are not the only one who has done this) and then I hear that "no-scholars" are the ones who believe that they were not. This appeal to scholars is interesting, but they are so far unnamed. I did include a reference that is scholarly - The Biblical Archeology Review. Are you aware that there are scholars who, like the ones you named above, make this sort of thing their life's work, who have made a compelling case?

By the way, the mention I made of the early church fathers was not based on scholarship but on witness. In their letters they mentioned some of these things validating scriptural and personal accounts. Think of it this way. If someone brought up to me in 2006 some event from 1978 that I was aware of at the time, I can recall enough to validate a few things about the event. If furthermore, I knew the people involved in the event with some familiarity, my witness extends to acknowledgement of their credibility or lack thereof. The interesting thing about these early church fathers, is that in their writings they make reference to things that validate the time and authorship. I assume you have read the gospels - perhaps you might want to read some of these as well - they are available with a quick google search.

Have you read Thieleke, Erickson, Walvoord and Zuck, Meier? I believe you would be impressed with their scholarship, and they look at all the data critically and explain their conclusions. I blieve that the most compelling case that is made concerns the lack of mention of the Fall of Jerusalem. Why would this have been left out? A fictional writer could have made a lot of hay with that. It could have been used to justify, explain and support the case for Christ, but they did not - they could not - it hadn't happened yet. Please expand your consumption of scholarship. Before I learned to drive turnip trucks I spent a few years in seminary looking into that very scholarship.

Consider this fall of Jerusalem issue... If it can be established that the gospels were written early, say before the year 70 A.D., then we would have good reason for believing that they were written by the disciples of Jesus Himself. If they were written by the disciples, then their reliability, authenticity, and accuracy better substantiated. Also, if they were written early, this would mean that there would not have been enough time for myth to creep into the gospel accounts since it was the eyewitnesses to Christ's life that wrote them. Furthermore, those who were alive at the time of the events could have countered the gospel accounts and since we have no contradictory writings to the gospels, their early authorship as well as apostolic authorship becomes even more critical.

None of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. This is significant because Jesus had prophesied concerning the temple when He said "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:5, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and burned the temple. The gold in the temple melted down between the stone walls and the Romans took the walls apart, stone by stone, to get the gold. Such an obvious fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy would have been recorded as such by the gospel writers who were fond of mentioning fulfillment of prophecy if they had been written after 70 A.D. Also, if the gospels were fabrications of mythical events then anything to bolster the Messianic claims -- such as the destruction of the temple as Jesus said -- would surely have been included. But, it was not included suggesting that the gospels (at least Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written before 70 A.D.

Similarly, this argument is important when we consider the dating of the book of Acts which was written after the gospel of Luke by Luke himself. Acts is a history of the Christian church right after Jesus' ascension. Acts also fails to mention the incredibly significant events of 70 A.D. which would have been extremely relevant and prophetically important and garnered inclusion into Acts had it occurred before Acts was written. Remember, Acts is a book of history concerning the Christians and the Jews. The fact that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple is not recorded is very strong evidence that Acts was written before A.D. 70. If we add to this the fact that Acts does not include the accounts of Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65), and we have further evidence that it was written early.

If we look at Acts 1:1-2 it says, "The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen." Most scholars affirm that Acts was written by Luke and that Theophilus may have been Luke’s patron who financed the writing of Luke and Acts. This means that the gospel of Luke was written before Acts.

At the earliest, Acts cannot have been written prior to the latest firm chronological marker recorded in the book—Festus’s appointment as procurator (24:27), which, on the basis of independent sources, appears to have occurred between A.D. 55 and 59. It is increasingly admitted that the Logia [Q] was very early, before 50 A.D., and Mark likewise if Luke wrote the Acts while Paul was still alive. Luke's Gospel comes (Acts 1:1) before the Acts. The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly.

For clarity, Q is supposedly one of the source documents used by both Matthew and Luke in writing their gospels. If Q actually existed then that would push the first writings of Christ's words and deeds back even further lessening the available time for myth to creep in and adding to the validity and accuracy of the gospel accounts. If what is said of Acts is true, this would mean that Luke was written at least before A.D. 63 and possibly before 55 - 59 since Acts is the second in the series of writings by Luke. This means that the gospel of Luke was written within 30 years of Jesus' death.

The early church unanimously held that the gospel of Matthew was penned by the apostle of the same name (Matt. 10:2). The historian Papias mentions that the gospel of Matthew was originally in Aramaic or Hebrew and attributes the gospel to Matthew the apostle.

Irenaeus continued Papias’s views about Matthew and Mark and that Luke, the follower of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by that apostle, and that John, the Beloved Disciple, published his Gospel while residing in Asia. By the time of Irenaeus, Acts was also linked with Luke, the companion of Paul. This would mean that if Matthew did write in Aramaic originally, that he may have used Mark as a map, adding and clarifying certain events as he remembered them. But, this is not known for sure.

The earliest quotation of Matthew is found in Ignatius who died around 115 A.D. Therefore, Matthew was in circulation well before Ignatius came on the scene. The various dates most widely held as possible writing dates of the Gospel are between A.D. 40 - 140. But Ignatius died around 115 A.D. and he quoted Matthew. Therefore Matthew had to be written before he died. Nevertheless, it is generally believed that Matthew was written before A.D. 70 and as early as A.D. 50.

Papias claimed that Mark was the interpreter of Peter, and that he carefully gave an account of everything he remembered from the preaching of Peter. Generally, Mark is said to be the earliest gospel with an authorship of between A.D. 55 to A.D. 70.

Luke was not an eyewitness of the life of Christ. He was a companion of Paul who also was not an eyewitness of Christ's life. But, both had ample opportunity to meet the disciples who knew Christ and learn the facts not only from them, but from others in the area. Some might consider this damaging to the validity of the gospel, but quite the contrary. Luke was a gentile convert to Christianity who was interested in the facts. He obviously had interviewed the eyewitnesses and written the Gospel account as well as Acts.

As far as dating the gospel goes, Luke was written before the book of Acts and Acts does not mention Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64. Therefore, we can conclude that Luke was written before A.D. 62. "Luke's Gospel comes (Acts 1:1) before the Acts. The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly.

The writer of the gospel of John was obviously an eyewitness of the events of Christ's life since he speaks from a perspective of having been there during many of the events of Jesus' ministry and displays a good knowledge of Israeli geography and customs. The John Rylands papyrus fragment 52 of John's gospel dated in the year 135 contains portions of John 18, verses 31-33,37-38. This fragment was found in Egypt and a considerable amount of time is needed for the circulation of the gospel before it reached Egypt.

A few things to chew on.
Mark

Originally Posted by MarkB4

<emphasis added>Have you read Thieleke, Erickson, Walvoord and Zuck, Meier?