Riverwind

Most scholars, even evangelical scholars, seem to date the Gospels post-70 CE. To my current knowledge, this is because {and only because} of the "predictions" of the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple.

I have read all of the "predictions", but I see no reason why these foreshadowings could not have been an obvious conclusions from previous rebellions and the conflicting ambitions and culture of the Romans. The temple would have been an obvious target of a Roman takeover (and it probably happened to other "rebelious" cultures at the hand of the Romans).

What, other than these "predictions", lead scholars to date the gospels post-70 CE? I know of at least one scholar, whom I believe was well-respected, who wrote a book defending a date for the gospels prior to 70 CE, but I don't recall if it was just a scholarly joke or what.

So, why can't the gospels be pre-70 CE?

Chris Weimer

Often Mark is thought to be late 60s, and Josephus sets the terminus a quo for Luke. Crossley is the latest secular scholar to posit an early date for Mark. Matthew is definitely post-temple as well, not for allusions to it being destroyed, but for setting the life of a post-temple believer.

neilgodfrey

You might be thinking of Crossley's book. * The link is to a review of it which will give some of the debatable sides of his argument.

( mod addition: (The Date of Mark's Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk)).

Among arguments for a late date are:

-- anomalies in the gospels themselves (e.g. Pharisees in Galilee -- should not be there till after 70; synagogues in Galilee pre 70 -- archaeological evidence does not support apparently; presumption of church traditions, rituals and hierarchical structure which might be expected to take time to arise -- as reflected in teachings of Jesus)

-- external attestation to the gospels not secure till second century

-- related to that one is the lack of any knowledge to the narrative details prior to the second century (unless one thinks the early date for Ignatius is rock-solid) (-- e.g. canonical and some noncanonical epistles)

-- emphasis on the Twelve (and dialogue with Mark over this) to my mind at least points to what was a second century issue (asserting rival claims of ecclesiastical authority)

-- one might even wonder if the mere story of Jesus in the flesh, especially his resurrection appearances, had anti-docetic origins (i know, many will jump on me for saying that is circular, ... but not debating the point here.)

-- the existence of early traditions that seem to contradict any knowledge of the gospel narratives (e.g. the view that Jerusalem fell because of James the Just and not Christ; the view that the eucharist was given by Jesus after his resurrection)

-- the arguably tighter fit of the Little Apocalypse to a dating from Hadrian's time than to any period prior (links to Detering's article have been posted here before.)

-- the tendency to other second century concerns -- e.g. Mark allows for Jesus-people to do miracles without following the main group; not so Matthew. Concerns about the single right belief and practice was more a second century concern. Letters of Paul assume much diversity within churches. Of course this point won't hold for anyone treating the letters of Paul as we have them as in the main genuine.

-- i'm sure i'll think of more after i post this and the 'edit' time runs out


Neil Godfrey

http://vridar.wordpress.com

jgibson000

More likely J.A.T. Robinson's Redating the New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk).

JG

neilgodfrey

Yes, didn't Robinson say that he began that work as something of a joke?

Riverwind

Yes, Robinson was the scholar I was thinking of. I've never read his book, so I don't know if it was really a joke or if he was serious, and I don't know how good a case he really made. I read the one review. It was well-written, but I don't buy some of his counter-arguments.

Anyway, it seems very curious to me that the gospel authors, if they were writing after the fall of the temple, wouldn't have added, "And see what happened, Jesus' prediction came true!" I mean, they do that sort of thing for all of his miracles and such. Why would they have avoided the fulfillment of the destruction of the temple? What a major feather in Jesus' cap, so to speak!

yalla

This is a cut and paste from a post of my mine, from a previous thread on this topic, which illustrates that there are more reasons [however you wish to weigh them] for dating the gospels post 71 CE than just the temple prophecy.

"1. The allegory of the vineyard 12.1-9
Which has the Romans destroying the vineyard in v9a and giving it to the christians in v9b.
2."Legion" 5.9 as a reference to the Roman legion X Fretensis with its symbol of the boar.
X Fretensis was the legion involved in the temple destruction.
3. JC referred to as "rabbi", 10.51, 11.21.
This title is anachronistic according to the Jewish Encyclopaedia [see 'rabbi'].
4. '' ALL Jews wash their hands" 7.3, a custom NOT relevant until the 2C.
["It is agreed by everyone, that about 100AD, or a little later, ritual washing did begin to become obligatory on all.....D.Nineham "Saint Mark" p.193].
5. JC teaching in and out of synagogues, which did not exist as religious oriented structures in Palestine until during, in some special cases, the War and generally not until after, well after.
There were no first century [religious oriented] synagogues in Palestine.
[Thats not a statement to be set in concrete however.]
6.The ''you will be beaten in synagogues etc''.
It is asserted by some that this is a very late 1c phenomena. That is the split between Christianity and Judaism only started in the late 1C, often dated after the birkhat ha-minim excoration by the Jews of the [christian] heretics.
This addition to the benedictions is dated c 85-95 after Jamnia.
Perhaps even later."

cheers
yalla

spamandham

The story of the 152 fish in Matthew, is derived from a Pythagorean story that predates Christianity by > 100 years (so I've heard, I'm no expert). Other stories set a lower bound at the destruction of the Temple. How can this discrepency possibly be resolved?

IMHO, the only reasonable way to resolve it is to give up the cherished opinion that the Gospels are pseudo-biographical works, and view them instead as collections of ideas that evolved over the course of more than 100 years - probably more like 250 years.

So, we may be able to determine the versions we have could not have preceeded such and such a date in total, or we may find evidence that suggests a certain earlier time period, but all we have really done is set limits on certain aspects. Other aspects could easily be from other time periods. There is strong textual evidence that at least some parts of the Gospels were handed down from some other now lost text. Is there any reason to believe this was not a continuous process up to some point?

To the extent linguistic analysis shows a given Gospel to have been predominantly written by the same author, this merely shows it was penned predominantly by one author, it does not demonstrate that the stories are that author's original ideas or observations.

Roland

Actually, if anything the gospels are dated too early, since there is no positive evidence that anyone much quotes them before Justin around 150 A.D. and nobody clearly identifies the "authors" until Irenaeus around 170.

Chris Weimer

That hardly means much. What do you make of texts which are found much later, from which no one has ever quoted? Dutch radicalism has long been refuted on the grounds of bad logic. Your whole argument assumes that there must have been quotes, and "identified authors" at the time it was written. Simply ludicrous.

What do you know of the Petronian Question?