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?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 30 by JLB32168]

It seems quite logical (not absurd) to conclude that for one to accept that Gospel authors have divine assistance with their memory, s/he would have to accept that something divine exists.

You're using the gospels as the 'evidence' for this divine. So in order for me, the non-believer, to accept that the gospels are evidence for the divine, I have to believe that the authors had 100% memory recall, every one of them. In order to believe that, I need to believe that they had divine assistance. In order to believe that, I have to believe in the divine...wait, that's the very thing you're trying to prove.
Hence, my charge of circular logic. Remember, when you start a conversation like this with a non-believer, they do NOT believe in the divine. Thus, you cannot have of your claim that a belief in the divine is needed in order to even get started.

We have to die, Dude. That’s the only thing we have to do. You asked a question. I gave an answer. Nowhere in that was any demand that you accept the answer was definitive truth.

You yourself haven't died. What you claim here is necessary in order to learn the 'truth' (die), you yourself have not done, and thus, your claim AGAIN is unfounded.
If you claim that a truth can only be learned by dying, why should ANYONE believe a person who has NOT themselves died?
(and no, don't mention Jesus. I don't believe he died and then came back).

I don’t. Is there a reason I should – other than it’s a possibility?

So what does the term 'autographs' refer to then? If not the actual piece of paper/parchment that the authors themselves put pen to, what else could it mean?
Again, it's an unrealized possibility.

Well, I think that the use of the word “contradict� is exaggeration. I think “discrepancy� is more appropriate.

Whatever word you want to use, we have you saying that these gospel authors had 100% reliable memory, and yet, when we read the actual gospels, each author says something different of the same event, or even has different events or different times for those events.
That there is a problem for the claim of 100% reliable memory. At least one author wrote down something wrong.

Does the number of angels at the tomb and how they’re different overthrow anything?

Matthew, according to you, has 100% reliable memory. He has divine assistance with this. Matthew says a man named Jacob is the father of Joseph, the father of Jesus.
Luke, according to you, has 100% reliable memory. He has divine assistance with this. Luke says a man named Heli is the father of Joseph, the father of Jesus.
Both these statements cannot be true. At least one got it wrong. Thus, your claim that both of these authors had 100% reliable memory is defeated.

[JLB32168]

You're using the gospels as the 'evidence' for this divine.

No – I’m saying that for one to believe that a deity can inspired people to write X then he has to believe that a deity exists. That is a logical statement. There’s nothing circular about it.
In order for one to believe that invisible pink unicorns can place their heads in virgin’s laps, one must believe that invisible pink unicorns exist.

You yourself haven't died. What you claim here is necessary in order to learn the 'truth' (die), you yourself have not done, and thus, your claim AGAIN is unfounded.

What claim have I made?

If you claim that a truth can only be learned by dying, why should ANYONE believe a person who has NOT themselves died?

I could really not care less if one believes me or not. The truth of eternal life as promised by the Judeo-Christian deity cannot be known this side of death. That is fact.

Whatever word you want to use, we have you saying that these gospel authors had 100% reliable memory . . .

No – that is what you wish I had said. I said that A)divine superintendence could guarantee 100% accuracy and precision. Whether or not divine superintendence actually occurred is a separate argument and I never asserted anything about that. You need to go back and read again.
Since the rest of your points are informed by your incorrect understanding of what I actually said, I don’t need to address them. It would be really helpful if you guys would address arguments that are actually made.

[tam]

.
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.

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

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.

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

Yes.

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


But to claim that all authors personally witnessed the events would be to ignore Luke. As for the gospel attributed to John, I see no reason to call that person a liar.

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.

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

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.


There was no age limit placed upon that.

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.

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.


Peace to you Z,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Kapyong]

Gday JLB32168 and all,

The oral tradition totally FAILED to record the Lord's Prayer - supposedly directly taught by Jesus to the disciples.

The Lord’s Prayer is mentioned in two Gospels w/insignificant variations. That hardly indicates failure.

On the contrary - if the Oral Tradition had worked, we would have exactly ONE copy of the Lord's Prayer - the one that Jesus allegedly taught.

Instead we see several DIFFERENT versions -

G.Matthew's Version :
Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread,
and forgive us the wrong we have done
as we forgive those who wrong us.
Subject us not to the trial
but deliver us from the evil one.

G.Luke's version :
Father,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come.
Give us each day our daily bread.
Forgive us our sins,
for we too forgive all who do us wrong;
and subject us not to the trial.

Didache's version :
Our Father, Who are in heaven, hallowed be Your name;
Your kingdom come;
Your will be done, as in heaven, so also on earth;
Give us this day our daily bread;
And forgive us our debt, as we also forgive our debtors;
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one;
For Yours is the power and the glory for ever and ever.

Modern version :
Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy Kingdom come,
thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory. for ever and ever. Amen

These are not 'insignificant' variations at all - there is a great deal of differences :

Early and important MSS (Aleph, B, D, Z, 205, 547) as well as some fathers (Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian) have :
"And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil"

Other MSS have :
"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen"

And a few MSS have another version :
"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, of the father, the son, and the holy spirit for ever. Amen"

A few MSS exclude the words "the power" or "the glory" or "the kingdom".

In short -
The Lord's Prayer is one of the most variant parts of the whole NT - yet these words were supposedly spoken by Jesus himself !

If there really was an Oral Tradition - it failed dismally.


Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday JLB32168 and all,

The oral tradition totally FAILED to record the names of the apostles - we have various DIFFERENT lists.

And yet, the lists comport with one another more often than they don’t. Again, you seem to have a novel definition for “to fail.�

On the contrary - you just agreed the lists were different - which means the alleged Oral Tradition failed. You seem to have a novel definition for "succeed".

My definition of success here would be for the lists to be IDENTICAL - indicating the information had been passed down correctly.

But my definition of failure here would be for the lists to be DIFFERENT - indicating the information had NOT been passed down correctly (obviously different lists cannot all be correct.)

The fact is -
The lists are DIFFERENT.
Early Christians did NOT know for sure what the names of the apostles were.

If there was an Oral Tradition, it failed to record the name of the Twelve Apostles.


Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday JLB32168 and all,

On the evidence of Christian writings, oral tradition conspicuously failed. By the time these stories were committed to writing, there were already many widely different versions.

“Wildly Different� – we’ll simply have to agree to disagree.

Please be sure to read carefully, so as not to read 'wildly' for 'widely' (although they turn out similar in this case.)

You are not just disagreeing with me.

You are disagreeing with the facts - the many differences I showed - which prove any alleged Oral Tradition failed.

Have you solved Dan Barker's Easter Challenge ? If the alleged Oral Tradition worked, then you should easily be able to answer all his questions. Here is a sample :

Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
Mark: One young man (16:5)
Luke: Two men (24:4)
John: Two angels (20:12)

Where were these messengers situated?
Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)

Let me know when you have answered all Dan's questions :
http://ffrf.org/legacy/books/lfif/stone.php


Kapyong

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 36 by Kapyong]

My understanding of the resurrection accounts is that different authors record different details from different moments. I don't personally believe the details cannot be reconciled since few of them give precise times for the details they present.

For example: There could have been two angels but one left or was not seen (or reported about) and that the angels moved position over the course of the morning.

Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)

In any case that is how I personally choose to interpret the verses. I recognize other may choose to interpret them differently.


JW

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 34 by Kapyong]

On the contrary - if the Oral Tradition had worked, we would have exactly ONE copy of the Lord's Prayer - the one that Jesus allegedly taught.

The fact that Jesus even taught a specific prayer at all, with specific words, would require that a 'correct' prayer be recorded. I don't think Jesus mentions anything about any random collection of words being satisfactory to God. No he supposedly says to his disciples to say a very specific collection of words, in order to pray 'correctly'. Apparently, only this prayer will be heeded, and not any other. So it's akin to a magic spell. Harry Potter can't wave a wand and say "Wing-GAR-dee-um Leviosaaaa", he has to say the words correctly or his feather won't fly.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 32 by JLB32168]

The truth of eternal life as promised by the Judeo-Christian deity cannot be known this side of death. That is fact.

Then why do you believe it? You yourself have not died. You are still alive. This statement of yours excludes YOU.

I said that A)divine superintendence could guarantee 100% accuracy and precision. Whether or not divine superintendence actually occurred is a separate argument and I never asserted anything about that.

Facepalm. Now you're trying to take back the argument we've been having for several posts? You and I have talked about divine assistance with memory for several posts and only NOW do you say that "Oh, I never said it actually happened!"? Why now and not earlier? Why mention divine assistance with memory at all if you're not going to claim it actually happened!?

[Willum]

JLB32168 said:

I could really not care less if one believes me or not. The truth of eternal life as promised by the Judeo-Christian deity cannot be known this side of death. That is fact.

Ah, if only Jesus had left us some proof in his wake, some person who had been on the other side to tell us the truth of eternal life on that side of death.

Lazarus, come forth!
Tell us what is was like.

That's odd, the only man to come back from the dead, and nothing is recorded about what he said.

What possible explanation could there be that this bit of history wasn't recorded, opinioned, criticized, examined... and been almost as big as the big "J," himself.

What possible explanation could there be?