Yuri Kuchinsky

I've been reading Loisy. He's wonderful. On your recommendation.

I'm honoured!

Have you noticed how some of the scholars from those old days seem so radical now? I'm constantly amazed that, in comparison, recent NT scholarship seems so very timid and conservative (and boring!). In particular, hardly anyone challenges the Pauline authenticity nowadays, whereas this was quite common 100 years ago.

What evidence is there for a second century date for all the gospels?

Well, IMHO the real question here should be, What evidence is there for a *first century* date for *any* of the gospels? And the answer is, of course, none.

I assume that the earliest movement was very apocalyptic. But, in such a case, they were probably way too busy preparing for the Second Coming to worry too much about publishing the gospels?

Our friend Quentin has assembled quite a lot of evidence indicating that, even as late as Justin's time, our canonical texts were still nowhere to be found.

It seems to me like the first proto-gospels date from somewhere ca 100 CE. Either late 1c, or early 2c.

All the best,

Yuri.

Baqqesh shalom veradphehu -- Seek peace and pursue it (Psalm 34:15)

Vorkosigan

Have you noticed how some of the scholars from those old days seem so radical now?

Yes. I quite agree.

In particular, hardly anyone challenges the Pauline authenticity nowadays, whereas this was quite common 100 years ago.

I've been rereading the Dutch radicals. They are quite thought-provoking.

Well, IMHO the real question here should be, What evidence is there for a *first century* date for *any* of the gospels? And the answer is, of course, none.

Well, surely Mark is laden with references that suggest a post-70 date, as Peter's website surmises. There are no overt anachronisms that I know of offhand. The others seem to me to be second century, no question.

It seems to me like the first proto-gospels date from somewhere ca 100 CE. Either late 1c, or early 2c.

I'd put them all about a decade later, around 110.

Vorkosigan