Riverwind

By internal evidence unless, of course, you believe it is all fiction.

This date, however, ignores p52 (and others that date around 200CE) of John which dates to around 125CE (according to most scholarly lists). I suppose you could point out that palaeography says this date can shift by around 50 years, but this shift can be in either direction. In addition, p52 is from the book of John, so the last composed gospel (according to many) likely falls at a date well before 140CE.

And even if as late as 140CE, I still cannot fathom the lack of mention of the temple's destruction. This is a real stumbling block to me and leads me to believe that the gospels, perhaps all of them, were written before 70CE.

Steven Avery

Hi Roger,

Hope you are having a wonderful springtime in UK.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse But doesn't such an early date have various problems? We can see from long passages which are verbally identical that Luke has Mark before him, or a draft not far from what we have.

However, I think that logic is assuming Markan priority which is vigorously contested by those who see a 40 AD Luke.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse Mark is based on Peter's preaching in Rome, and may not have been published until after his death in 64

Perhaps Mark may have been substantially earlier. Could Peter be in Rome in the 40's ? We even had a thread where the issue was raised as to whether this timing was sensible for Peter - and whether he could have met Philo there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse Therefore Luke cannot predate it by much either.

Again this presumes Markan priority. A lot of this was discussed on the synoptic-l forum a few years back. It makes a good read. I could try to put together a post with some web references, especially the discussions involving Richard Anderson and John Lupia on the forum around 2001. Or simply search the forum with keywords, since Yahoo's search is pretty good now. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/synoptic-l/

This post by John Lupia has a short bibliography on Lukan Priority.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Synoptic/message/803
Richard H. Anderson, "Theophilus: A Proposal,"
Evangelical Quarterly, 69:3, (1997), 195-215.

Robert L. Lindsey, "A New Approach to the Synoptic
Gospels," MISHKAN, No. 17-18 (1992-1993) : 87-106.

William Lockton, The Resurrection and Other Gospel
Narratives; and, The Narratives of the Virgin Birth:
Two essays / by W. Lockton. (London : Longmans, Green,
and Co., 1924).

Sidenote:
Here is a comment that especially relates to the IIDB mishegas.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/synoptic-l/message/8138
What amuses me most is when the phantom redactors are introduced into arguments, which is pure speculation without any evidence whatsoever.

There are also discussions in the synoptic list in 2005 and 2006.
I am not yet up to speed on those.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/synoptic/

Also the following elist.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/historical-disciples/

Where Joseph Codsi adds some good insight into the current
discussions by Richard Bauckham on eyewitnesses.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/histor...les/message/32
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/histor...les/message/33
"Bauckham has spent a lot of time and effort studying many questions that can have some relation to the gospels' narratives. But he reminds me of a fisherman who manages to catch in his nets a lot of insignificant creatures. What pertains to the heart of the matter keeps eluding him."

And I will add that part of the problem is that Richard Bauckham himself is at least a partial late-dater (post-70AD for some Gospels) so that he has taken a very difficult and unevangelical position from which to defend the authenticity of the Gospel accounts.

Please note that some of the folks who defend Lukan priority do it at the expense of Mark or Matthew, a view with which I disagree heartily. Similar to where Matthew was attacked on the donkeys and I needed to point out that Matthew added real insight on Zechariah and the triumphal entry. Or where Mark was attacked here for the Herodian-Pharisee alliance and Matthew was accused of 'fatigue' in not removing his reference to the alliance. In my view Lukan chronological/sequential priority (I would like to have a word here that does not imply superiority) does not lessen Mark or Matthew one iota.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse And anyway, isn't the long stay in Rome of Paul's imprisonment a natural point to compose the works?

Perhaps for Acts. However I see no reason that Luke was not substantially earlier. The former treatise. Some years, or decades, passed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse Luke also refers to accounts by a previous generation in Luke 1. If he wrote in AD 40, there were no previous generations. In AD 60 there is.

I'm not sure where you get references as from a previous generation.

Luke 1
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth
in order a declaration of those things which are most
surely believed among us,
Even as they delivered them unto us,
which from the beginning were eyewitnesses,
and ministers of the word;
It seemed good to me also,
having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first,
to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
That thou mightest know the certainty of those things,
wherein thou hast been instructed.

Of course a primary issue is whether the previous declarations
include one or more of the other three gospel accounts. (And if
any of those could also be circa 40AD, not excluding John). There
was a funny dialog on this with Jack Kilmon and John Lupia on
synoptic-l. Lupia and Anderson see a negative tinge in Luke's
view of the earlier writings he references in Luke 1. You can see
how John Lupia expresses it at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/synoptic-l/message/5990
This concession on Luke's part makes it clear he wrote the Gospel to fill a
need to establish an authoriized account backed by the authority of the
Church or else he would have given Theophilus a copy of either Mark or
Matthew or both or some proto version of either. Lule's concession,
therefore, confirms no previous Gospel or proto-Gospel existed and exhibits
his privilege of being the first to do so.

It might be good to see how Richard Anderson approaches this question
as well. On his blog I think there is some discussion. (Lupia adds a 'RCC==organized church' tinge that can be bypassed.)

Richard mentions a connection with the prologue and refuting "idle tales" that were circulating.

Luke 24:11
And their words seemed to them as idle tales,
and they believed them not.

And references his the following blog entries about "Idle Tales"

http://kratistostheophilos.blogspot....1_archive.html
Idle Tales

http://kratistostheophilos.blogspot....1_archive.html
"Johanna, Apostle of the Lord or Jailbait?"

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/synoptic-l/message/9418 - Richard Anderson
It is not an idle tale. Luke has in fact presented accurate information to Theophilus. Luke is telling Theophilus to ignore the "idle tales" and to accept what Luke writes as being accurate. Luke was not criticizing Matthew or Mark nor was he responding to either Matthew or Mark. The "idle tales" relates back to Luke's preface and explains at the end chiastically what Luke is telling Theophilus in the preface at the beginning.

Note that that Richard discusses the Josephus question mentioned above.

http://kratistostheophilos.blogspot....1_archive.html
Rewriting Sacred Scriptures (3/27)
Josephus Dependent on Luke (3/29)

Richard also referenced
Jesus and the Heritage of Israel (or via: amazon.co.uk) edited by David P. Moessner
as having some good discussions of the Luke prologue.

Earlier I gave a few other links that lead to the Richard Anderson blog and more:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...70#post4252470
most excellent Theophilus

Shalom,
Steven

hatsoff

Well, I had hoped you would have received a succinct answer by now, but surprisingly you have not. Perhaps I may be of service.

The importance of the Little Apocalypse (Mk 13/Mt 24/Lk 21) in dating the Gospels must not be underestimated. Here we have a clear and extremely suspicious mention of the destruction of the temple, adjoined to a description of a troubled, war-torn period. By far the most likely explanation for this is that the author of Mark (and therefore also those of Matthew and Luke) knew of the Jewish War and intended his apocalyptic discourse to conjure up its images. While it is possible that this was just a coincidence resulting from typical "doom and gloom," to borrow from Richard Carrier, foreboding, I think it would be irresponsible to interpret it as such without sufficient corroborative evidence.

But, of course, what little additional clues we have usually point to a date at least nearly as late as 70. First, we have an argument from silence, in which all the Christian works dated probably prior to 70 fail to mention or quote any of the Gospels, as do the great majority of the writings which could even possibly date pre-70. Next, we have the implications of authorship by a non-eyewitness generation, namely that the need for written Gospels seems to have originated after the Apostles' retirement from active ministry. Also (and I agree with Roger that this is hardly well-established enough to prove anything in its own right), as Chris mentioned, some of Luke's content bears uncanny resemblance to the work of Josephus, which suggests a date in the 90s or later.

The only real piece of evidence pointing to a pre-70 date is the mysterious failure of Luke to document important events between 62 and 70, most notably the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul and the Jewish War. However, this particular argument from silence is not quite as strong, in my opinion, as good Roger would have you believe. There are quite a number of alternative explanations to Luke's ending. For example, if memory serves, Luke and Acts are about the same number of lines, suggesting that they may have been written on twin-length scrolls; if true, he may simply have run out of space to finish his narrative. Another possibility is that he intended a third volume after Acts, just as he intended a second after finishing Luke. Or, it could be nothing more complex than that he didn't feel like the post-62 events were relevant or helpful; after all, if one was writing about previous decades, he would not necessarily be inclined to write about the intermediate decades, as well.

In the end, though nothing is certain, the evidence is quite weighty for a post-70 date for all three Synoptics.

I hope that helps.

spin

I'm talking about the production of gospels. That doesn't necessarily entail that the content is fiction. The term fiction isn't particularly appropriate for non-historical traditions (which may contain information which reflects events that happened in the past, though which events is now probably unretrievable).

If you're aware of the Andreas Schmidt late 2nd C. dating then you know mentioning the traditional dating as significant is only you wasting time. But of course this fragment has been talked about in the archives. Even more conservative analyses such as Brent Nongbri's is of little help.

Why didn't you write the gospels if you want to dictate the content?

When you have something tangible to point at, I'll happily read it.


spin

Amaleq13

Responding to what you consider exaggerated rhetoric with some of your own? Yep.

Many Christian scholars find it quite sensible to date them later than that and you know it.

Roger Pearse

I'm sure Christians can make their own decisions as to who qualifies as a Christian scholar. As for the rest, you sound as if you want to challenge me to a duel or something!

Sincerely,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Hello Steven,

Yes I am, being on holiday, as I've written on Chris' blog; and indeed it is marvellous weather here.

Um. I suppose it is conceivable, but I see nothing that demands this.

I don't believe that we are committed to the proposition of any dates prior to 100, tho. It just happens to be true that Luke and Mark must be ca. 62-70; Matthew is undateable but clearly close to them; and John ca. 85-90. (I don't see theological implications, as a fundamentalist, from all of them being written around a table in 99 AD just before Matthew and John expire of old age, if some really could show this to be the case!)

Well, a little while ago I was reading Luke 1:2 devotionally in the NIV, and saw the phrase: "just as they were handed down to use by those who from the first were eyewitnesses..." and I wondered about "handed down". So I went and grabbed my Greek NT, and had a look to see what the word was. It was paredosan which is the aorist 3rd person plural of paradidwmi, which of course means "pass on", etc. (from didwmi, give etc, which I'm sure we all remember). But my eye strayed to the nearby noun, paradosis with a meaning of "tradition; something handed down from one group or generation to another". The word may not mean this. But I suspect that it can, and probably does here. After all, Luke was Paul's companion, and so probably of the same generation. But since they did all their travelling 14 years after the early events of Acts, surely these are people who were too young to be with Jesus, but only just?

This is purely speculation, as you will quickly see; but it feels right to me.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Cege

Papias commented on GMark in the early 100sCE, which would seem to confirm that copies of that gospel were circulating by then. Ditto for GMatthew.

I've been told that quotations from GLuke were included in writings by early
2nd century Christian leaders, which indicates that it was also circulating among churches by that period. I don't have access to The Apostolic Fathers but I have a copy of the Index of Texts pages that show 16 citations where Luke was "quoted" in 1st century writings.

Anyone with a copy willing to take a look and confirm what the nature of the quotations from GLuke actually include?

Steven Avery

These types of arguments are demolished by the historicity. Even the one recent post where precise Roman titles of the 1st century are given (matching the location and the time and the position) by itself basically destroys this 2nd-century claim.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

John Kesler

The story of 153 fish is in John, not Matthew.