When were the gospels written? Does it matter?

[Zzyzx]

.
When were the gospels written? Does it matter?

We can say with a great deal of confidence that all four books were in existence by about AD 90 given the distribution of the books in all the churches. Almost all scholars will give a significantly earlier date to the four books, although some put the book of John as late as the 80s AD. A general consensus of conservative scholars puts Mark at about AD 60-65. Some even put Mark in the 50s AD. Matthew and Luke are usually given a date of writing of about AD 60-70 and John AD 70-90. These are obviously rough approximations. Such dates are based on guesses about which authors relied on the others. For instance, it is not unreasonable (though not proven) to think that Mark was a source for Matthew and Luke. Matthew and Luke relate prophecies of the destruction of Jerusalem (which happened in AD 70) which seems to support these books being published before AD 70. John shows evidence of response to gnostic ideas, likely implying a later date of writing. It is also believed that John lived significantly longer than the other gospel writers. The arguments for the date of writing of these books can get rather obtuse. If you want to get a feeling for these arguments, you should pick up a detailed commentary on each of the gospels and consider carefully the arguments of the authors. A good commentary will present more than one theory and the evidence for the different dates of authorship.

I wish I could give exact dates, but to be honest, we simply do not know the dates these books were written.

http://evidenceforchristianity.org/what ... o-we-know/

Bold added

Notice that 60s CE would be three decades after Jesus is said to have died – and 90 CE would be sixty years after.

Yet, some attempt to claim that writers personally witnessed events and had perfect word-for-word memory of conversations.

As a person of seventy-six I am quite aware that I cannot describe in accurate detail events from thirty or sixty years ago and darn sure cannot recite word-for-word extended conversations. But then, I don't claim to be magic.

I could, however, write stories that made it sound as though I knew about or witnessed things (that I did not) from thirty or sixty years ago – and write detailed accounts of conversations. I might even hear about such things from folklore or oral tradition (“Uncle Joe did such and such and Aunt Mary said so and so�).

If Christian scholars and theologians do not know when gospels were written, do not know by whom they were written, do not know their sources of information HOW can anyone rationally claim that the stories are true and accurate accounts of events and conversations that really happened?

[PghPanther]

.
When were the gospels written? Does it matter?

We can say with a great deal of confidence that all four books were in existence by about AD 90 given the distribution of the books in all the churches. Almost all scholars will give a significantly earlier date to the four books, although some put the book of John as late as the 80s AD. A general consensus of conservative scholars puts Mark at about AD 60-65. Some even put Mark in the 50s AD. Matthew and Luke are usually given a date of writing of about AD 60-70 and John AD 70-90. These are obviously rough approximations. Such dates are based on guesses about which authors relied on the others. For instance, it is not unreasonable (though not proven) to think that Mark was a source for Matthew and Luke. Matthew and Luke relate prophecies of the destruction of Jerusalem (which happened in AD 70) which seems to support these books being published before AD 70. John shows evidence of response to gnostic ideas, likely implying a later date of writing. It is also believed that John lived significantly longer than the other gospel writers. The arguments for the date of writing of these books can get rather obtuse. If you want to get a feeling for these arguments, you should pick up a detailed commentary on each of the gospels and consider carefully the arguments of the authors. A good commentary will present more than one theory and the evidence for the different dates of authorship.

I wish I could give exact dates, but to be honest, we simply do not know the dates these books were written.

http://evidenceforchristianity.org/what ... o-we-know/

Bold added

Notice that 60s CE would be three decades after Jesus is said to have died – and 90 CE would be sixty years after.

Yet, some attempt to claim that writers personally witnessed events and had perfect word-for-word memory of conversations.

As a person of seventy-six I am quite aware that I cannot describe in accurate detail events from thirty or sixty years ago and darn sure cannot recite word-for-word extended conversations. But then, I don't claim to be magic.

I could, however, write stories that made it sound as though I knew about or witnessed things (that I did not) from thirty or sixty years ago – and write detailed accounts of conversations. I might even hear about such things from folklore or oral tradition (“Uncle Joe did such and such and Aunt Mary said so and so�).

If Christian scholars and theologians do not know when gospels were written, do not know by whom they were written, do not know their sources of information HOW can anyone rationally claim that the stories are true and accurate accounts of events and conversations that really happened?

correct...................and think about this.

When was the Roswell weather balloon crash?..........1947?

within 30 years the first book was finally written about that?

Was it claiming it was a weather balloon crash by then or did it get exaggerated some?

Connect the dots Christians...........you have a story on your hand with extraordinary claims well beyond live physical aliens being kept alive in a government base and you expect us to swallow your story hook line and sinker too?

[JLB32168]

Thanx for exploding the myth that the gospel authors were eyewitnesses. I hope other Christians are paying attention.

That is only one conclusion. There are others. No myth has been exploded.

My position is that it is unlikely that common people would have precise memory of detail and word-for-word memory of conversations that occurred thirty to sixty years earlier.

That presupposes that the people who wrote the stuff down only wrote it down thirty to sixty years later, which is what your argument requires. The oldest extant copies may date from thirty to sixty years later but that doesn’t mean that written copies didn’t exist before then – only that they haven’t survived.

Yes, the tiny percentage of people who have phenomenal memory ability might.

How do you know that it is a tiny percentage – not that it’s relevant? If only one possesses the ability then the believer is safe to believe what s/he believes.

If someone wishes to claim that four out of four gospel writers were so gifted (and lived long enough -- AND were actual witnesses) they are welcome to make that case.

Belief doesn’t require that John remembered everything – just those things said in the 1st person.

Exactly "writing what others said he said" -- that blows the "writers were witnesses" claim, doesn't it?

Everything written need to be witnessed 1st person. Luke readily says that he didn’t see the stuff but was compiling things that were written down by others. Is there any reason we should jump to the conclusion that the stuff he compiled was riddled with inaccuracies that are mere folklore, oral tradition, rumor, tall tales, gossip, etc.? Secondly, you suggest that oral tradition, rumor, and gossip are false. Gossip and rumor – though much maligned – are often true. Oral tradition is neutral.

[PghPanther]

Notice that 60s CE would be three decades after Jesus is said to have died – and 90 CE would be sixty years after. Yet, some attempt to claim that writers personally witnessed events and had perfect word-for-word memory of conversations.

The Vedas are memorized and they are voluminous.

As a person of seventy-six I am quite aware that I cannot describe in accurate detail events from thirty or sixty years ago and darn sure cannot recite word-for-word extended conversations. But then, I don't claim to be magic. Pierre-Sylvain Filliozat has detailed the remarkable accuracy of the transmission of the Vedic texts in his Ancient Sanskrit Mathematics: An Oral Tradition and a Written Literature. Modern societies have lost this ability since literacy has increased so much among the population. Noah Webster (you know - the geek who made the 1st American dictionary) memorized the entire bible w/100% precision and accuracy. In India the Mahabharata (an epic poem of 100,000 unrhymed couplets) has been learned by heart for centuries. Of course, the entire account need not be memorized by one person but broken up into portions. Certainly Greek shorthand was used to record the sermons of John Chrysostom in the 4th Century AD/CE.

It seems your entire argument is founded on the presupposition that one couldn’t possibly remember this stuff w/any degree of accuracy after three decades and that simply doesn’t jibe with reality.

Since it is quite possible to memorize things as short as the Gospels then it is perfectly okay to accept that one could memorize each and every word of Christ’s dialogue – especially if one is writing down what others said he said.

Wrong.........it is one thing to be objectively interested in a subject to dedicate to memory the preservation of it so that it can be objectively documented for future generations and then someday be put to pen as a historical account of an event....

But it is a horse of another color to expect that oral tradition of memorization be kept intact by those with vested interest in believing it to be shared with other for the sake of believing and not for the sole interest of documenting history of their events but for the sole interest of spreading the good news of supernatural claims.......that is no oral pathway to represent accurate information exchange.....

So to hell with the oral traditions in a society getting it right when the purpose is less than objective in a historical manner but for specific claims of a world view in the supernatural beyond............that dog doesn't hunt

[JLB32168]

Wrong.........it is one thing to be objectively interested in a subject to dedicate to memory the preservation of it so that it can be objectively documented for future generations and then someday be put to pen as a historical account of an event.

Okay – so one cannot write down things as they are spoken? The existence of ancient Greek shorthand proves that is a false assumption.

But it is a horse of another color to expect that oral tradition of memorization be kept intact by those with vested interest in believing it to be shared with other for the sake of believing and not for the sole interest of documenting history of their events but for the sole interest of spreading the good news of supernatural claims.

Is it possible for people to memorize what Christ said? No it isn’t. Is it possible for people to copy down what others said and give it to John? Yes it is. Is it possible that the stuff they copy down and give to John, while being hearsay to John, be true hearsay? Yes it is.
To make a positive assertion “What you’re describing is impossible� is founded upon your preconceived biases and prejudices. You cannot possibly prove you’re right and I’m only interested in saying it’s possible and you certainly can’t produce proof that I’m wrong.

So to hell with the oral traditions in a society getting it right when the purpose is less than objective . . .

Does “subjective� mean “false?� We both know that the answer is “No.�

[Zzyzx]

.

My position is that it is unlikely that common people would have precise memory of detail and word-for-word memory of conversations that occurred thirty to sixty years earlier.

That presupposes that the people who wrote the stuff down only wrote it down thirty to sixty years later, which is what your argument requires. The oldest extant copies may date from thirty to sixty years later but that doesn’t mean that written copies didn’t exist before then – only that they haven’t survived.

Correction: The oldest surviving documents of the gospels are from CENTURIES later (Fourth Century). They are purported to be copies (repeatedly by hand) of documents from First Century.

Check Bible history if in doubt.

If someone maintains that gospel writers “wrote it down� earlier than 30 to 60 years after said events and conversations they have the burden of providing evidence – NOT just speculation of what “might have been�.

Yes, the tiny percentage of people who have phenomenal memory ability might.

How do you know that it is a tiny percentage – not that it’s relevant?

Do you actually question that only a tiny percentage of people display phenomenal memory?

If only one possesses the ability then the believer is safe to believe what s/he believes.

Of course “the believer is 'safe' to believe what s/he believes� – and credit four out of four common people 2000 years ago with having phenomenal memory – in order to believe that what they wrote 30 to 60 years later is accurate in detail and word-for-word accurate remembering conversations.

That is the nature of belief.

If someone wishes to claim that four out of four gospel writers were so gifted (and lived long enough -- AND were actual witnesses) they are welcome to make that case.

Belief doesn’t require that John remembered everything – just those things said in the 1st person.

There are four gospels in the Bible. Can they all authors be identified convincingly, shown to have witnessed events and conversations recorded, lived long enough to write decades or generations later?

OR, is that unsupported wishful thinking by those who want to believe?

Exactly "writing what others said he said" -- that blows the "writers were witnesses" claim, doesn't it?

Everything written need to be witnessed 1st person. Luke readily says that he didn’t see the stuff but was compiling things that were written down by others.

Exactly, “Luke� (whoever he was) acknowledges he did NOT witness events and conversations but was writing what others told him.

Is there any reason we should jump to the conclusion that the stuff he compiled was riddled with inaccuracies that are mere folklore, oral tradition, rumor, tall tales, gossip, etc.?

Nope. We should rationally concluded that hearsay (that heard from others) cannot be assumed to be accurate and truthful.

Secondly, you suggest that oral tradition, rumor, and gossip are false.

Correction: I state that oral tradition, rumor and gossip MAY be true, MAY be false, MAY be a mixture of both.

Kindly attempt to understand what I actually say and avoid mangling it to try to make a point.

Those who maintain that any matter derived from such sources IS truthful and accurate are asked to support that contention.

Gossip and rumor – though much maligned – are often true.

And they are often false. Most are wise enough to NOT count on gossip and rumor being accurate and truthful.

Does any rational person believe every rumor and bit of gossip on the Internet?

Oral tradition is neutral.

Correction: Oral tradition and oral lore is cultural material and tradition transmitted orally from one generation to another. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_tradition

“Cultural material and tradition� is NOT neutral – but reflect the thoughts of a group of people.

[JLB32168]

Correction: The oldest surviving documents of the gospels are from CENTURIES later (Fourth Century). They are purported to be copies (repeatedly by hand) of documents from First Century.

The Oldest surviving document is a fragment of St. John’s Gospel from the 1st Century and are Chapter 18:31–33, and the back (verso) contains parts of seven lines from verses 37–38 and our modern manuscripts match.

If someone maintains that gospel writers “wrote it down� earlier than 30 to 60 . . .

No one asserted this. I pointed out that you suggested that nothing was written down until thirty to sixty years after the events occurred. You don’t know that and that is all I asserted. You are forced to concede that indeed the oldest extant copies might be copies of previous copies that are from much earlier.

Do you actually question that only a tiny percentage of people display phenomenal memory?

I’ll ask the question again. How do you know that it is a tiny percentage? You don’t know that.

Of course “the believer is 'safe' to believe what s/he believes� – and credit four out of four common people 2000 years ago with having phenomenal memory . . .

No – one need not believe that the Gospels were composed by four men exclusively. One may infer that the Gospels came from schools of people who followed the three Apostles. We already know that Luke’s Gospel wasn’t written by a 1st hand witness.

Can they all authors be identified convincingly, shown to have witnessed events and conversations recorded, lived long enough to write decades or generations later?

“Convincingly� is a subjective value judgement that cannot be proved so I see little reason to entertain the question.

Exactly, “Luke� (whoever he was) acknowledges he did NOT witness events and conversations but was writing what others told him.

And this is important because . . .
Why exactly? Do you know that Luke’s original sources were riddled with inaccuracies or are you just presupposing that they were? We both know that the latter is your opinion.

We should rationally concluded that hearsay (that heard from others) cannot be assumed to be accurate and truthful.

I’ll ask the question again. Can we assume that hearsay is inaccurate and full of falsehood?

Correction: I state that oral tradition, rumor and gossip MAY be true . . .

And you seem to do that begrudgingly since you highlight the second two consistently to the exclusion of the first.

Those who maintain that any matter derived from such sources IS truthful and accurate are asked to support that contention.

I maintain that it is logical. I don’t speak to truth because it can’t be proved w/reference to the Gospels outside of time travel.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 16 by JLB32168]

One may infer that the Gospels came from schools of people who followed the three Apostles. We already know that Luke’s Gospel wasn’t written by a 1st hand witness.

You're making it worse on yourself, JLB. Instead of trying to somehow prove that just 4 men had incredible memory, now you want to stretch that to an unspecified number of people in 'schools'? Now you've got to somehow prove that a number greater than 4 men had incredible memory.

The Oldest surviving document is a fragment of St. John’s Gospel from the 1st Century and are Chapter 18:31–33, and the back (verso) contains parts of seven lines from verses 37–38 and our modern manuscripts match.

Assuming this to be true (not going to look it up, can't be bothered), then all you have is John Chapter 18 verses 31-33 and parts of verses 37 and 38.
That is all.
This does NOT mean that the missing chapters and verses of that document automatically match our modern manuscripts for the rest of John. How can you tell? We don't have them.

[tfvespasianus]

The Oldest surviving document is a fragment of St. John’s Gospel from the 1st Century and are Chapter 18:31–33, and the back (verso) contains parts of seven lines from verses 37–38 and our modern manuscripts match.

JLB,

I will assume you are referring to p52 which is considered the oldest fragment we possess in the NT corpus. However, although it is argued that it is the earliest fragment, it is dated to sometime circa 125 ce (i.e. the second century) and this is the low estimate established via paleography. As an aside, this method of dating is not exceptionally precise and the fragment could be somewhat earlier or much later than 125 ce.

In any case, I have to post something more substantial on this topic later in the week.

Take care,
TFV

[PghPanther]

Wrong.........it is one thing to be objectively interested in a subject to dedicate to memory the preservation of it so that it can be objectively documented for future generations and then someday be put to pen as a historical account of an event.

Okay – so one cannot write down things as they are spoken? The existence of ancient Greek shorthand proves that is a false assumption.

But it is a horse of another color to expect that oral tradition of memorization be kept intact by those with vested interest in believing it to be shared with other for the sake of believing and not for the sole interest of documenting history of their events but for the sole interest of spreading the good news of supernatural claims.

Is it possible for people to memorize what Christ said? No it isn’t. Is it possible for people to copy down what others said and give it to John? Yes it is. Is it possible that the stuff they copy down and give to John, while being hearsay to John, be true hearsay? Yes it is.
To make a positive assertion “What you’re describing is impossible� is founded upon your preconceived biases and prejudices. You cannot possibly prove you’re right and I’m only interested in saying it’s possible and you certainly can’t produce proof that I’m wrong.

So to hell with the oral traditions in a society getting it right when the purpose is less than objective . . .

Does “subjective� mean “false?� We both know that the answer is “No.�

When you are talking about a person whose very words in which will hang your eternal fate of your soul................well, you better have a tape recorder and not digging around looking for old dusty manuscripts and piecing them together then trying to figure out which ones fit a orthodoxy to place in a canon.............

But that is what you have.....

I saw a debate once with Dr. Craig Evans an apologist who is a graduate of Dallas seminary (very conservative one at that) telling Bart Ehrman in regards to the words claimed to come out of Christ's mouth in John's gospel that "we can pretty well know what Christ said".......

Pretty well?????

Are you kidding me?

Look if you had to have heart surgery and the day before the operation you asked the nurse about the surgeon who was going to direct the whole procedure about his experience in such operations and she said........."Oh he pretty well knows what he is doing"......................Well, I'm outta there and finding a new surgeon.

But according to theology your soul and its eternal fate is far more important than some flesh and blood pump...................so why do have to accept all this speculation and assumptions about what Jesus might or might not have said as loose facts when so much hangs on the balance of it??

Even the make believe world of theology is absurd if you try to deal with it as reality.

[Kapyong]

Gday JehovahsWitness and all,

The papyrus fragment of John’s Gospel (cataloged as Rylands Papyrus 457 - John Rylands Library, Manchester, England) P52 to date the oldest extant manuscript fragment of the Christian Greek Scriptures and dates from the first half of the second century, possibly as early as 125 C.E.

Actually, P52 is variously dated :
* 100-199
* 100-150
* 145-195

Possibly 125 ?
Sure, and possibly 200 too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_L ... apyrus_P52

But believers tend to distort the facts.


Kapyong