Peter Kirby

I'm just pointing out that my religious tendencies and anti-religious tendencies are relatively mild and fairly balanced. :devil1: :angel:

So you have to look otherwise to account for my biases in NT studies.

Peter Kirby

Dawkins is sure full of sound and fury. Rally the base, I guess. The hyperbole from the camp leaders is one of the many reasons I hate camps. Let me find my own place to pitch my tent, and leave me be. I am nobody's fanboy.

Roger Pearse

The lights are on, the beer has arrived, the party is in full swing and as everyone dances there arrives a man with a Dark Bias. <chuckle>

Is it some form of Bulgarian car?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Peter Kirby

Yes.

For example, am I biased to an 'early' dating or a 'late' dating of canonical texts?

Justify your answer.

Peter Kirby

Just a note. There is a line in the Disney version of 101 Dalmatians. The man had just said something delightfully silly, to which the warm reply came, "Oh, Roger, you are an idiot." I think of that playful scene more than one time when reading your posts, Roger. You are like the 'idiot' who is of course not one (consider the Russian tradition of the 'fool' for comparison), and who can be labeled one only in affection.

No Robots

You are pitching your tent in public in the middle of a debate over the nature of Christ, and you want to be left alone? Bonne chance.

Riverwind

I don't really know. Only you do. I go by what you've written here and elsewhere.

This is a point that I've specifically talked about in other threads. Your bias here is atheistic, naturalistic, and "late". I give you credit for including 65 - 70 in your dating here, but "most plausible" is "most plausible" to you. People do change their minds, so I won't hold you to that bias.

With respect to the other gospels, the earliest dates according to your website begin at 80 A.D., because I'm pretty sure you believe that Mark was the first written and this gives plenty of time for the other gospels to be deveoped. This, also, probably due to the aforementioned "events", biases you toward what I would call a "late" date.

So, I have my opinions, but do you really think that your beliefs don't affect your concepts of "early" and "late"?

Of course this same discussion could apply to other Biblical issues just as well.

Amaleq13

Perhaps in this thread, you might attempt to explain how your bias theory incorporates the fact that so many Christian scholars join Peter in accepting this dating?

Peter Kirby

Is it not enough to note that characterizing 65-80 CE as a "late dating" of Mark can only be a tenuous reading of what "early" and "late" would imply in this context? Riverwind gives away the game before he gets started by characterizing as "late" something which does not carry the value judgment of lateness; the numbers are just 65 and 80.

Moreover, he reads my argument incorrectly, and so I would ask him to read the Gospel of Mark page much more intently and thoroughly before proceeding to say that I made an assumption on insufficient data, let alone that I filled the gap with an "atheistic, naturalistic" bias instead of some other, may I say again darker, bias.

Riverwind

I already did in another thread, but sure, if they don't accept the dating then they are branded Christian apologists and anathematized by secular academia.