CX

Well, saying and proving are two entirely different animals. Anyone can say whatever they want. Without supporting argumentation it amounts to nothing. So if you have any interest in an actual discussion rather than just blustering about your position and making bald assertions, please provide an argument. In it you must both demonstrate that scholars use P52 alone to date all the gospels and refute the various scholarly arguments for the accepted dates which you claim are "phoney". Otherwise there's really no point in continuing this discussion.

Vinnie

There's a howler....

Vinnie

Celsus

That must mean the entire Old Testament minus Esther was written at Qumran. Esther, of course, dates to after the New Testament was written, when those hedonistic Purim festivals had calmed down a bit.

Tharmas

If I may jump into this discussion, I’d like to offer an observation. I apologize in advance for the fact that I normally don’t have enough time in my schedule to follow through in long discussions, so I try to limit my participation to offering observations.

I’ve been reading Schnelle’s excellent commentary, and I believe his history of biblical criticism sections are eye-opening. At the same time, I find myself wondering if he himself doesn’t ask enough questions. I’m frustrated myself by the lack of hard evidence in dating New Testament texts and I offer the following as a kind of devil’s advocacy.

My understanding is this; up until fairly recently most Biblical criticism was faith based, that is, it was assumed the Gospels were actually written by the Evangelists themselves. When this view began to be questioned in the 19th century, and it was established that the gospels copied from each other, dates began to be pushed back.

But note, we start with a basic assumption that the events in the gospel narratives were substantially historical, and the authors were contemporaries of the events described, and we start modifying from that assumption. In other words, as a methodology we assume a start date of 33 C.E and try to land as close to that as possible.

So we push Mark back to around 70, based on 13:2. That still means the author could have been a near contemporary of the events described, or could have even known Jesus. We can still hold on to our assumptions. Then the other Gospels ripple back a little further.

But correct me if I’m wrong. What we’re really saying is GMark could not be any earlier than about 70 C.E. The only logic that says it can’t be later than that is that a lot of believing Christians for years have assumed that the author was an eye witness of the events he describes. There is no other reason that says it has to be dated as early as possible.

We can take a similar tack with Acts. Does the author say “I am a third generation Christian?” Of course not. In fact he misrepresents himself as a first generation Christian companion of Paul’s. Critics then notice he must be at least a third generation Christian, based on his political concerns. But really there’s no reason he couldn’t be a fourth or fifth generation Christian, for that matter. Again, for centuries the critical instinct has always been to go for the earliest date that could possibly be supported. But once you realize that’s what’s going on you don’t have to accept it as a methodology.

Finally, what does Ignatius say? Does he say, “quoting the Gospel of Matthew…?” No he doesn’t. He doesn’t mention Matthew by name. He simply quotes several sayings of Jesus in a manner that reminds critics of GMatt. Because there is a vested spiritual interest in certain critics to have the gospels as old as possible it is assumed that he is quoting GMatt. But he could just as easily be quoting Matthew’s sources, or oral tradition, or for that matter Matthew could have been quoting the letters of Ignatius.

I’d like to think that deep down scholars realize what shaky ground all this is. That’s why when something like PS52 shows up they jump for joy abut how now everything is "proved."

So, what have I missed? I’m not trying to argue for one set of dates or another, but I’m also not convinced one way or the other.

Signed,

Frustrated

CX

That's probably pretty accurate. For dating NT texts we concern ourselves mostly with a terminus ad quo and a terminus ad quem. Which is to say a lower and upper boundary. GMk's mini-apocalypse seems to point to the end of the Jewish Revolt.

It's actually a bit more complicated than that. Obviously if we accept Markan priority and some variant of the two source hypothesis (which is not entirely uncontroversial) the dates of the synoptics are interrelated. Such that GMk couldn't have been written later than we suppose GMt and GLk to have been written. This can get to be a bit circular. There are other reasons for supposing that GMk was written near 70 C.E. It is clear from the Pauline epistles that the earliest Xians expected the parousia in their own lifetimes and this is reflected in GMk as well. The interest in the destruction of the temple and the turmoil surrounding it seems to imply that the author is speaking of recent events. A Xian several generations removed would likely not have cared overmuch about this event.
[addendum] It's worth noting, I think, that the "mini-apocalypse" is not included in ALk's narrative demonstrating the a gentile Xian further removed from the events was not interested in relating them.

In addition although it is clear from GMk that the parousia has been delayed it is not yet overdue and so we do not see this as a literary theme in AMk's narrative as we do in later gospels. All this points to AMk's audience living in the interval between the destruction of the temple and the imminent return of Christ. Scholars also point to AMk's "primitive theology" and such literary devices as the "messianic secret" for supporting a date at the end of the first century. Ultimately since we don't have iron clad proof it becomes somewhat of an educated guess. There are those who would date the gospels much later.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Well, fine. So let's see what arguments are out there for the early dating other than P52...

Quote:

GMk: Generally dated around 70 C.E. (either shortly before or after) - Rationale: Based on interpretation of GMk 13:2, 14.

Hmm... OK.

(RSV) Mark 13:2 And Jesus said to him,
"Do you see these great buildings? There
will not be left here one stone upon
another, that will not be thrown down."

So, Jesus makes a prophesy, and this prophesy comes true, supposedly... But how is this supposed to have any bearing whatsoever on the dating of Mk?

Because, even if we go with the fundamentalists, and accept that Jesus made a miraculous prophesy that later came true, still this will tell us _absolutely nothing_ about when Mk was written... The only thing that this passage allows is for the fundamentalists to claim that Mk _might have_ been written before 70 CE. But, I'm afraid, the more sceptically-inclined readers on this board will probably not be too impressed with using a miracle to date the gospel of Mark...

(RSV) Mark 13:14 "But when you see the
desolating sacrilege set up where it ought
not to be (let the reader understand), then
let those who are in Judea flee to the
mountains;

So, how's this supposed to help us in dating Mk? Admittedly, this passage seems to indicate that Mk was written after 70 CE, but how soon after 70 CE? We just don't know...

Of course, I've seen the apologists making an argument in such cases that such passages are written in a very "vivid style", so the author must have been an eyewitness? Well OTOH, I can write for you a very vivid account of some battle in the Trojan War, but this will surely not mean that I was there, right?

In short, the whole thing is completely bogus. So what else is there other than P52 to give any substance at all for these arguments about the early dating of Mk?

Quote:

GMt: Generally dated around 90 C.E. Rationale: Usage of GMk means it must be later than that gospel;

But since I reject the entirely bogus 2ST, and that Mt used Mk, so this means that this argument is without any validity whatsoever?

Quote:

Knowledge of it by Ignatius (ca. 110) sets terminus ad quem.

Well, since the dating of Ignatius at ca. 110 seems to be entirely bogus... draw your own conclusions.

Quote:

GLk: Generally dated around 90 C.E. Rationale: Usage of GMk;

See above. 2ST is entirely bogus.

Quote:

Internally "Luke writes from the perspective of the 3rd Christian generation, which is already interested in a presentation of epochs of salvation history" (Udo Schnelle HTNTW p. 243 with footnotes).

Oh, great. This seems like an argument for a late dating of Lk. Couldn't agree with it more...

Well, lest some people think that I'm being too negative, perhaps tomorrow I will present some positive evidence for when the gospels _should be_ dated realistically. But essentially, I will just say that I favour the evolutionary view of their history. In other words, no single date can ever be affixed to them. Their development was a continuing process that started perhaps, in a small way, even before 70 CE, and continued even well after 200 CE.

But meanwhile, for those who haven't read it yet, please check out,

"Dating Early Christian Gospels", by Andrew Bernhard,

http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org/...an_gospels.htm

He concludes his article as follows,

"While it may be only natural to wonder
exactly when significant ancient texts were
written, some questions are better left
unanswered. After nearly two millennia, the dates
of gospel origins cannot be determined as
precisely as we might like. Assigning speculative
dates to early gospels does not contribute to our
understanding of these texts, but inevitably
prioritizes them. To avoid doing such injustice to
these texts, the gospels should be located in the
broad context of pre-canonical Christianity (ca.
60-150 C.E.). Then, it will be possible to
appreciate all early Christian gospels for what
they are: some of the first attempts ever made to
articulate the meaning of the life of Jesus,
sincere attempts made by people who revered
him."

Regards,

Yuri.

CX

Your entire argument, such as it is, is a red herring. I am not defending an early dating of the gospels. Rather I am challenging you to demonstrate that scholars date the gospels solely on the basis of P52. You have, so far, entirely failed to address that issue. Furthermore you haven't even provided a cogent argument against the arguments scholars DO use for dating the gospels. Try to provide scholarly references rather than just speculating and appealing to your own authority and opinion.

Additionally, I do not think it's controversial in the field of biblical studies, that the canonical gospels as we have them today underwent an evolutionary process in the first 2 centuries of the common era. The question we are trying to address is really when did a written gospel first appear in some form. But that is a different discussion than the present one.

Yuri Kuchinsky

I'm sorry to hear about it, CX. Usually, I only deal in slightly pinkish herrings, so this must have been an oversight of my part.

Quote:

I am not defending an early dating of the gospels.

Well, actually it's not too clear to me what you've been defending here... I guess nothing in particular...

Quote:

Rather I am challenging you to demonstrate that scholars date the gospels solely on the basis of P52. You have, so far, entirely failed to address that issue.

I did? And I thought that I've been showing that other than P52 there are simply no other valid arguments for the early dating.

Quote:

Furthermore you haven't even provided a cogent argument against the arguments scholars DO use for dating the gospels. Try to provide scholarly references rather than just speculating and appealing to your own authority and opinion.

And I thought that my arguments were pretty cogent. How were they uncogent? As for scholarly references, I refer you to Loisy. What have you read by him so far?

Quote:

Additionally, I do not think it's controversial in the field of biblical studies, that the canonical gospels as we have them today underwent an evolutionary process in the first 2 centuries of the common era.

Hmm... If it's un-controversial, how about some reference? Surely it should be easy for you to come up with one, since this view is so "un-controversial"?

Quote:

The question we are trying to address is really when did a written gospel first appear in some form. But that is a different discussion than the present one.

I don't think that anyone really knows for sure "when did a written gospel first appear in some form". But OTOH I still see the early 1c dating of all 4 gospels as nothing more than an apologetic myth.

Regards,

Yuri.

PS. I've been meaning to post here a brief (1000 words or so) summary of a realistic view of gospels history, but my summary keeps getting longer. But, in any case, it should be ready soon.

Jayhawker Soule

Should we not, on the contrary, ask those who make such a claim to substantiate it?

As in the past, I site The Curve of Knowns as an example of what one might expect from science. Where is this "Curve of Knowns" confirming the accuracy of paleographic dating? "Everyone knows" that it's accurate to within +/- 25 years, but, best I can tell, "no one knows" how "everyone" came to this conclusion.

I'm both surprised and disappointed that you would seek to shift the burden of proof.

Clivedurdle

Professor Alvar Ellegard "Jesus One Hundred years before Christ " asserts:

I have.. advanced linguistic criteria by which the Gospels and Acts can be classed with some probability, as definitely later than the first century texts analysed in ch 2 (Revelation, Hebrews, 1 Clement, Barnabas).

By criteria independent of each other, therefore, I can support a second century date for ALL the Gospels and for Acts.