Merle

I have been looking for a good summary of the evidence that the gospels were written after 65 AD. As I search the internet, all I can find on the subject are Christian files that date the gospels at an early date, or files that merely assert that they were written later with little evidence. Is there something on the web that summarizes the arguments?

I know the big argument is that the gospels speak of the fall of Jerusalem. Christians quickly write that argument off by saying that Jesus was speaking a prophesy before the event happened.

I have seen some arguments about anacronisms in the gospels, but I forget where I have seen that. Does anybody have any more information on this?

Thanks.
Merle

Gooch's dad

Peter Kirby's site (he's a moderator here, look at that "Recommended Reading" post at the top of the thread page) is excellent:

www.earlychristianwritings.com

Christians can't use the bible as evidence that supernatural claims (Jesus' resurrection) are real, and assume that supernatural claims are real when defending the bible. It's a circular argument.

They have a double standard--they don't assume supernatural causes as explanations for all other ancient writings.

-Kelly

mike_decock

I second the recommendation. Peter's site is excellent!

:notworthy :notworthy

Except when they assert that other Sacred Texts were inspired by Satan.

-Mike...

Metacrock

NO we don't! Not those of us who know what we are talking about. We use something called the historical critical method which was develped by scholars in German (mainly in Gemrany) in the 19th century and has been refined a great deal over the years.

Most scholars date the writting of the Gosples from 66 AD (Mark) to 90 (john). The discovery of the John Rylands Frangment, which dates to AD 120-30 proves that the Gospels existed and were being circulated by that no latter than that date.

Most scholars allow at least 20 years for circulation time, and the fragment was found in Egypt. That means it took a while to be copied and get there. So the original document probably existed by at least 100.

synoptic Gosples were in existece by 90. that date is usually decided based upon mention of the destruction of the tmpel.

you are confussing theological claims with historical scholarship. Dating the writting of the Gospels is not a point of dcoctrine, so it has nothing to do with the supernatural

Metacrock

Who assumes that?

Gooch's dad

Read the OP again, Meta. Yes, many Christians DO make exactly that claim, that skeptics are being 'biased' for not presuming supernatural causes in studying/dating the gospels and their story.

You claimed exactly that in another thread, regarding a naturalistic vs. supernatural explanation for the empty tomb. And right there, you admitted your bias. You have that same double standard. I rather doubt you assume supernatural explanations for events that can readily be explained by mundane causes.

mike_decock

I was born and raised as a fundy. I've heard it plenty of times.

-Mike...

Merle

Thanks for the suggestion.

Yes, I do agree that Kirby's sight is excellent, and I link to it at mine. I may just need to spend some more time there, but I can't seem to find exactly what I am looking for anywhere as far as hard evidence that the gospels were written after the Jewish war.

Metacrock

Meta =>I'm sure, not what I was compalining about. I was complaining about the asssumption that Christians base things like dates of Gospels upon supernatural causes.





Meta =>Where? I haven't argued for empty tomb since I've been back.[quot













Meta =>Of course I have a bias. you think you don't? We all have biases. The scholarly approach in this day and age is to not pretend we don't have biases, we all do. Scholars now understand that we have own up to them, rather than try and pretend to be above human frailty.

I think you are confussing belief with scholarship and calling that a double standard. On the one hand, I do have beliefs. But on the other hand, I can except scholary findings without feeling that my beliefs are threatened.

Dating the Gospels is not a point of doctrine. One can be a christian and believe the Gospels were written at any time. I can say I believe they were written in 1973 and still be a christian if I want to (although I would be a luny one to say that). that's not part of the doctrine, it's not a matter of belief.

Metacrock

Meta =>i know. That was my rhetorical way of saying "I don't assume that."