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?

[bjs]

Modern NT scholars however, agree that all the Gospels were anonymous and written by unknown persons.

This quite simply a false statement. There is a case to be made that the Gospel were written by unknown person, and anyone is free to believe that is the stronger case. I find evidence in favor of the specific authorship for at least three of the Gospels to be compelling. If you find counter evidence compelling, start a thread and present that evidenced.

However, the suggestion that “modern NT scholars� agree on any single view of authorship for the Gospels is not true. There are a variety of theories and no single view about the authorship of the Gospels can be consider the dominant view of modern scholarship in general.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 51 by bjs]

Again, we don't know who, but we do know:
They preferred Greek. They had access to enough scribes to get the word out.

Not too many people in that jar...

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

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.

1) Traditions in the gospels are found in Paul at 40 AD, who claims to have received them earlier. A reading of him and Acts puts that reception at 3 years after the death of Jesus and the claimed resurrection.

2) The fact that I said "claimed" is irrelevant to your argument. All history traces back to "Claims". Someone, somewhere, at sometime, CLAIMS to have been somewhere, at sometime, and to ahve seem SOMETHING. These CLAIMS or TALES are eventually written down. It is at this point that real historical inquiry occurs.

3) "Word-for-word suggests Jesus' sayings...? Is that what you meant? I know of no one who claims "word-for-word" correspondence. Jesus most likely spoke Aramaic. Do you suppose that victims of a bankrobbery can recall, in robotic detail, every event? Should we therefore throw out everything they say?

4) I have no doubt you cannot remember a good deal of mundane events. My guess is, some of the most important events of your life have stuck pretty good. Hence we do not have a whole lot of mundane details of Jesus' life; but a good many which, if we witnessed, would probably stick.

5) If Peter was 20 during Jesus' ministry, he would've been 50 or 60 at the writing of Mark. so, to cast doubts on the gospels you must be saying at least one of the following:

a) Peter (and all the disciples) died the same day Jesus did or shortly after.

b) Peter remained absolutely silent, not saying a word, not a SINGLE word, until 30 or 40 years later, and had grown quite senile at that time.

c) Even if he did talk about Jesus throughout the intervening years, the events were of so little importance to those that heard it that THEY at least never said a SINGLE word, till years later.

d) That the disciples told the stories once (like the telephone game) and then dropped out of the picture, retiring to Germania or something. They did not remain active leaders in the new movement, teaching about Jesus' life and recounting his deeds and impressing by repetition the events of which they were witnesses.

e) That the people who heard the stories were like 8th grade children who thought it'd be funny to change the stories; this means that there was not a single MATURE individual who ever said, "Wait, that is not what happened." Eventually the 8th graders outlived the adults, and we have an 8th grade version of an original message.


Is that what you ahve in mind?

Conclusion.

30-40 years is NOT long especially when dealing with dramatic events. I remember exactly where I was sitting and even the grill I had a crush on the day I witnessed 911.

When one studies oral cultures, one finds the old "telephone game" analogy completely inadequate.

Compare the distance of time between the gospels' composition and the events they recount, with all ancient literature. You will find they beat them by decades if not centuries. Why should we trust any of them if a "time frame" is your main critique?

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 33 by tam]

Hi Tam, it is a pleasure as always (even though we usually disagree).

When were the gospels written? Does it matter?

I would suggest that it only matters that the gospels which claim to be written by an eyewitness, were actually written within the lifetime of the eyewitness. Otherwise we would know that the author was not the eyewitness and was lying about it. Bringing reliability of anything written into question.

Reliability of what is written can be questioned for MANY reasons.

Can the writer be shown to have witnessed what s/he records (regardless the time frame)?
What were the writer's sources of information and were they reliable?
Is the writer promoting a certain cause?
Are there independent, disconnected sources that corroborate what is claimed?

What I gather from this summary is that scholars do not know when the gospels were written. They make estimates based upon various possibilities and various bits of evidence.

Agreed. However, many everyday Christians KNOW for sure. How does that work?

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

One author claims to have been an eyewitness. (the gospel commonly attributed to John)

Agreed

One author claims specifically NOT to have been an eyewitness but to be writing down what other eyewitnesses have passed on, and that author was writing to a specific person. (the gospel attributed to Luke)

Agreed. “Luke� (whoever he was) acknowledged he was reporting hearsay (that heard from others). Hearsay is not regarded as a highly reliable source of information.

I don't think the other two even make a claim one way or the other.

They evidently did not make a claim, but many Apologists seem to KNOW they were witnesses.

One “fly in the ointment", Tam is that the Apostles were said to be common men of the area. Common people of that era were largely illiterate – and certainly not fluent in writing Greek.

But to claim that all authors personally witnessed the events would be to ignore Luke.

Agreed.

As for the gospel attributed to John, I see no reason to call that person a liar.

The writer of “John� (whoever he was) may have NOT claimed to be an eyewitness. We do not have access to his original documents and have no way of knowing if anything was changed or added during the centuries of hand copying of copies of copies until the earliest documents we have were produced (Fourth Century).

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.

Assuming the stories are not true... it does not have to be common; it doesn't have to be something that you could personally do; it only has to be possible. Someone who thought such things were important enough, and who did not just go and forget them and never speak of them again for decades until finally deciding to write them down, might have taken care to remember them.

Of course it is POSSIBLE that four out of four gospel writers had phenomenal memory and recorded exactly the events and words from thirty to sixty years earlier.

In any other context would you accept the claim of great accuracy by four out of four people thirty or sixty years later – even if they had been witnesses (which has not been demonstrated)?

Assuming the stories are true...

Why would one assume the stories are true? Do we / people in general / Apologists / you assume that stories of other religions about their proposed supernatural characters are true?

Does “assume them true� apply only to Christian writers? If so why?

the above still applies, with the added help of holy spirit reminding the witnesses of all that Christ said to them.

Ah yes, the “Holy Spirit� whispering in their ear (or their mind). That may seem convincing in church or in revival meetings or in gatherings of believers; however, it is not accepted as sound argument in reasoned, honorable, public debate.

But the advocate, the holy spirit, that the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have told you.

Part of the story says that the storytellers will be supernaturally assisted – so it must be true.

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�).

You could. If there were any actual witnesses to that time, however, they would probably recognize that you are a fraud by the things that you have said that never occurred, and then call you out for them.[/quote]
That assumes that there were “actual witnesses� and that they later became aware of my story.

I could easily avoid that by moving hundreds of miles away, telling the story to people who were not familiar with the area in which the events supposedly occurred, and writing in the language of the new area rather than the original area.

Could we then count on someone “calling me out�? Even if through wild imagination that could be proposed, is there any assurance that they would write accounts that survive?

Do we assume that gospels were written in the area Jesus preached? Do we assume they were written in languages of people living in that area? Scholars and theologians seem to think that neither is true. But what do they know? Right? Everyday Christians know better than those who spend a lifetime studying scriptures.

A significant number of people who DO study scriptures deeply conclude that they are unreliable or false. See www.clergyproject.org

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?

Scholars and theologians are not the end all know all of how to determine what is or is not true.[/quote]
Who would be in a better position to know what was true in scriptures than Christian scholars and theologians who devote entire careers or lifetimes to study of scriptures – or everyday, in-the-pew, or “independent� Christians?

If we want the best information available on how to fly an airliner would we be well advised to consult experienced pilots and flight instructors – or would frequent fliers be our choice for advice?

It is illuminating when Apologists feel it necessary to demean Christian scholars and theologians (as well as demeaning fellow Christians / Apologists who express different or more liberal / modern / moderate views – the common “Not REAL Christians� accusation).

[Zzyzx]

.

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.

1) Traditions in the gospels are found in Paul at 40 AD, who claims to have received them earlier. A reading of him and Acts puts that reception at 3 years after the death of Jesus and the claimed resurrection.

Kindly VERIFY that Paul/Saul wrote in 40 CE and that it was three years after the death of Jesus. Citations / sources / URLs

Notice that Paul/Saul doesn't even claim to have known Jesus or to have witnessed any of his actions or words – but is claimed to have “learned� about them in a “vision� (or delusion, or hallucination, or a fabrication, or whatever it was) that he says VERY little about but which is expounded upon in detail by whoever wrote “Luke�.

2) The fact that I said "claimed" is irrelevant to your argument. All history traces back to "Claims". Someone, somewhere, at sometime, CLAIMS to have been somewhere, at sometime, and to ahve seem SOMETHING. These CLAIMS or TALES are eventually written down. It is at this point that real historical inquiry occurs.

Does “real historical inquiry� support claims of supernatural characters and events?

3) "Word-for-word suggests Jesus' sayings...? Is that what you meant? I know of no one who claims "word-for-word" correspondence. Jesus most likely spoke Aramaic. Do you suppose that victims of a bankrobbery can recall, in robotic detail, every event?

Okay. That seems to suggest that we DO NOT know what Jesus may have said with accuracy. Right?

Should we therefore throw out everything they say?

Perhaps it would be wise to acknowledge that we do NOT know with assurance what Jesus said – and we certainly do not know it well enough to hinge on exact words.

4) I have no doubt you cannot remember a good deal of mundane events. My guess is, some of the most important events of your life have stuck pretty good. Hence we do not have a whole lot of mundane details of Jesus' life; but a good many which, if we witnessed, would probably stick.

Like most people, I remember major events – such as when I first married in 1959. However, I cannot list the people who were there and can't remember all of what happened – and darn sure don't remember exactly what was said (even in general terms).

5) If Peter was 20 during Jesus' ministry, he would've been 50 or 60 at the writing of Mark.

Okay, since we are speculating, if Peter was sixty during Jesus' ministry he would be ninety or one hundred when “Mark� was likely written. If he was forty then he would be sixty or seventy by “Mark�. Do we know anything about his age?

There seems to be considerable scholarly debate concerning what Peter actually wrote.

so, to cast doubts on the gospels you must be saying at least one of the following:

Correction: I “cast doubt on the gospels� for many reasons. Kindly refrain from telling me what options I may choose. Your limitations do not apply to me.

1. The gospels were not written until decades or generations after Jesus is said to have died
2. Christian scholars and theologians do not know or dispute / debate the identity of writers
3. Since identity cannot be determined with certainty it is worthless to claim they were witnesses
4. Their sources of information are unknown (and may be folklore, oral tradition, myth, legend)
5. No original gospel documents survive – only hand copies of copies of copies with the earliest available dating to the Fourth Century.

30-40 years is NOT long especially when dealing with dramatic events. I remember exactly where I was sitting and even the grill I had a crush on the day I witnessed 911

.
I hope the GRILL responded well to your crush (perhaps with a hamburger). Just kidding, Just kidding.

I remember where I was when VE (Victory in Europe) was celebrated on May 8, 1945. So what?

Does that entitle me to claim phenomenal memory – or to write a detailed account of who did and said what?

When one studies oral cultures, one finds the old "telephone game" analogy completely inadequate.

Is this to claim that “oral cultures� preserve exact details and words in their stories?

Compare the distance of time between the gospels' composition and the events they recount, with all ancient literature. You will find they beat them by decades if not centuries. Why should we trust any of them if a "time frame" is your main critique?

Do scholarly historians claim they know exactly what happened and who said what 2000 years ago?

Do any of us base life decisions on what was reported to have happened in ancient times?

[Kapyong]

Gday tam and all

Actually, Kapyong is the name of a battle in 1951 - UN vs China.

In fact - NOT ONE of the NT books was written by anyone who ever met the alleged Jesus.

I don't think you can prove that statement true. I don't think there is any evidence to prove that statement true. There are guesses from scholars, based on how they interpret evidence, but not much more than that.

I meant that the consensus of modern NT scholars is such - not one book of the NT is considered to have been written by anyone who ever met Jesus. That's the fact.

Do you normally call scholarly consensus 'guesses' ?
Or does that only apply in this case ?

The gospel commonly attributed to John is claimed to have been written by the 'disciple Christ loved'; one who WAS an eyewitness. (that does not make the author John, mind you, but an apostle who was an eyewitness, yes) It is the only gospel of the four that makes this claim of being an eyewitness, and it is certainly possible that the author was indeed the disciple Christ loved, as claimed. So I don't think you can say that it is a fact that not one of the NT books was written by anyone who ever met Christ.

No.
The G.John does NOT make any claim to have been by an eye-witness. Instead - some unknown persons ADDED a 3rd-party belief to the book of unknown origin.

Furthermore, G.John was originally considered to have been by the Gnostic Cerinthus, and thus rejected. But when the name was added, then Christians accepted it as genuine and by John.

And from the contents it is obvious the writer did NOT know any Jesus either

The facts are quite clear - contemporary experts in the field all agree that not one book of the NT was written by anyone who ever met the alleged Jesus.


Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday bjs and all,

Modern NT scholars however, agree that all the Gospels were anonymous and written by unknown persons.

This quite simply a false statement. There is a case to be made that the Gospel were written by unknown person, and anyone is free to believe that is the stronger case. I find evidence in favor of the specific authorship for at least three of the Gospels to be compelling. If you find counter evidence compelling, start a thread and present that evidenced.

Actually it is quite a true statement, as anyone who reads Ehrman, Crossan, Metzger etc. would know.

Faithful believers believe the faithful beliefs of earlier Christians compelling

But the counter evidence is so compelling that modern NT scholars agree that none of the Gospels were written by any eye-witnesses.

As Bart Ehrman points out in Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (pp. 249-250):
“Because our surviving Greek manuscripts provide such a wide variety of (different) titles for the Gospels, textual scholars have long realized that their familiar names do not go back to a single ‘original’ title, but were added by later scribes.�

All the Gospels started out without titles, they were added probably by Irenaeus.

Ehrman again :
" Contrary to what you may sometimes have heard, there is no concrete evidence that the Gospels received their familiar names early on. It is absolutely true to say that in the manuscripts of the Gospels, they have the titles we are accustomed to (The Gospel according to Matthew, etc.). But these manuscripts with titles do not start appearing until around 200 CE. What were manuscripts of, say, Matthew or John entitled in the year 120 CE? We have no way of knowing. But there are reasons to think that they were not called Matthew and John."

However, the suggestion that “modern NT scholars� agree on any single view of authorship for the Gospels is not true. There are a variety of theories and no single view about the authorship of the Gospels can be consider the dominant view of modern scholarship in general.

There ARE a wide variety of theories.
But NONE of those scholarly theories support the BELIEF that the Gospel authors are known to be the four evangelists. (Apart from faithful believers.)

The modern consensus of NT scholars is that the authors are UNKNOWN.


Kapyong

[JLB32168]

first you say it's all 100% accurate.

No – I argued the position that it could be 100% accurate from the witness’ point of view; however, I personally don’t hold to that position (that some Christians do.) I don’t think the written word has to be infallible.

So, that means you think the Lord's Prayer isn't important?

I’ve already said that Luke never says he’s a witness and he says as much. As for the different versions, they’re not appreciably different and I can’t imagine God gets upset over it.

It's a plain fact.

What if Christ gave two versions of the prayer?

But it was transmitted in many contradictory stories ! How can it be a success if we have DIFFERENT stories ?

Can you give an example of a contradiction?

[bjs]

The modern consensus of NT scholars is that the authors are UNKNOWN.
Kapyong

Putting a false statement in bold letters does not make it true.

Being faithful or a believer has nothing to do with the issue.

Some scholars argue that the authorship of the Gospels cannot be reasonably known. Others argue that it can. There is not currently a consensus.

We can each list various scholars who hold various positions, but I cannot see how that will get us anywhere.

If you want to start another threat about Gospel authorship (there have been many) then be my guest. Otherwise, for my part I see no point in continuing to discuss this appeal to authority.

Unless there is evidence for a consensus (not just a few names that hold one specific view), I will leave this point with this: There is not currently a scholarly consensus about gospel authorship, and even if there were for either side then this would be the logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

I found the following link an interesting read regarding authorship of the Gospels. I don't present it as proof one way or the other, but I think it brings up a lot of good points and seems like a good analysis. There are also comments and discussion at the end of it.

https://adversusapologetica.wordpress.c ... e-gospels/