Casing me doubt: the date of the writing of the gospels?

[abacabb]

Most of the letters of Ignatius are forgery and those that are not forgery are still the subject of controversy, although no one disputes that even these are full of interpolations.

The moon landing is disputed. I don't take that seriously, being that Ignatius was quoted early on.

 

[abacabb]

And there is a good reason why the moon landing is disputed. Maybe you shoud look into before making it sound like a coco theory. Ignatius letters are forgery and filled with interpretations making them wortless in debating the dates of the Gospels

People who doubt the moon landing have zero understanding of science. People who place the Gospels practically into the third century also have close to zero understanding of ancient history.

 

[abacabb]

Read what i wrote about Ignatius.



As for Polycarp he never mentiones the name of Gospel of John. And he died in 155CE so the mention would be around 130ad.


Source: ntcanon.org

Polycarp mentions first john and almost every other NT book. 1 john quotes gospel of john.
The Development of the Canon of the New Testament - Polycarp


Clement quotes Gospels in the first century. Go read 1 Clement if you don't believe me.

 

[floating axehead]

The gospels where most likely written in the 2nd century. Also remember Papias mentioned that Matthew was in hebrew not Greek.

Try something like

Mark: mid 2nd century
Matthew: mid 2nd century
Luke: mid 2nd century
John: 130ce+

Why do we have a Muslim poster posting in a Christian only area? Is this what the OP needs?

 

[floating axehead]

But you have not posted any truth - only lies. All you do is feed the doubts of the OP, which is satan's work. You should be ashamed.

 

[ebia]

Actually there is no evidence for those dates. The 1st dates for the canonical gospels are wishful thinking based on internal evidence only. When we look at history the first person to actually mention any of the canonical gospel was Papias (140ad) and this was mentioned by Irenaeus(180ad). So we dont see any canonical gospel untill the end of 2nd century. The earliest manuscript that exists is P52 dated to 125-150 ad and its size is the same as a small credit card.

The gospels where most likely written in the 2nd century. Also remember Papias mentioned that Matthew was in hebrew not Greek.

Try something like

Mark: mid 2nd century
Matthew: mid 2nd century
Luke: mid 2nd century
John: 130ce+

The number of credible scholars still dating any, let alone all, the gospels into the second century is vanishingly small. The lack of physical manuscripts dating back into the first century is exactly what one would expect - its remarkable that we have such physical evidence going back as early as we have.

 

[ebia]

This has been eating away at me so much lately:

Most everyone has come to the conclusion that the gospels were written about 50 years after Jesus death.. doesn't this mean that the writers were not eye witnesses of Jesus at all? Can't this have caused many false teachings based on illegitimate information written?

Were the writings possibly even a huge hoax?

I am a Christian but this has been causing me much doubt lately. Any replies are greatly appreciated. Thanks, God bless..

Be careful where you put your faith. Of the gospels, only one puts any weight one who wrote it - the fourth. That's almost certainly the last to be written and tradition has always agreed with that; although we can't be quite sure who "the beloved disciple" is its always been accepted that he was very young when the events took place and lived to a very old age. If he were, say, 20 in ad 30 and his gospel was written in ad 85, say, that would make him 75 years old. Very unusual for sure, but not at all impossible. Mark's dating is consistent with the tradition that he was interpreting Peter's version of the story around the time of Peter's death. Luke doesn't claim to be an eyewitness. "Matthew" doesn't make any claim of authorship, though there are signs that it does include some of Levi's perspective.

 

[ebia]

the earliest being mid 2-3rd century is remarkable?
Why would one expect lack of manuscripts dating back into the first century?

Because manuscripts are rare and fragile. Only a miniscule number of manuscripts of anything from those sorts of dates survive. Most texts from those periods don't survive even in copies.

Not to forget the gospels doesn't come into history by name until 180 CE.

As for scholars dating it into 1st century that's based on internal evidence. They do the same for Homer, Plato, Aristotle and other text.

It's partly on internal evidence. It's partly from what late first century and early second century sources say, either original or in later quotes of those, it's partly from extrapolating back - if you have manuscript evidence of John from, lets say, 125 from the other side of the Mediterranean from where it was written then the original must have been written a few decades before that, etc.

Scholars also date Gospel of Thomas predates the four main gospels.

A very small number of scholars think a proto-Thomas may predate the canonical gospels, but its very much a minority view. It requires a Greek community to produce texts that are increasingly Jewish, and that's completely implausible.

However case for the interal evidence has notmuch values when it comes to the Gospel reason is it lacks history and archelogical evidence aswell as the Gospels makes historical and geographical mistakes making even the internal evidence pointing towards 2nd century.

As i said earlier. Saying the gospels were written in 2nd century has as much as saying they were written in the 1st century.

Also it seems Gospel of Luke was based on Marcion's Gospel of the lord. Marcion of course belived Yahweh was an evil god and the Father being a Good and greater god making him a Henotheist. Also epistles of Paul were most likely written by Marcion and Paul most likely never existed seeing as the oldest ms for acts is 3rd century.

I don't know of any serious scholar who thinks Luke is based on Marcion's gospel. Nobody credible thinks the main Pauline epistles are not genuinely by Paul.

Sorry, but what you are saying is not remotely academically credible.

As a non-Christian you are also breaking forum rules by posting here.

 

[Iosias]

Richard Bauckham's work is interesting, though I am not convinced by it.

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses and Testimony of the Beloved Disciple.

 

[ebia]

Richard Bauckham's work is interesting, though I am not convinced by it.

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses and Testimony of the Beloved Disciple.

What aspect do you not find convincing?

 

[Iosias]

What aspect do you not find convincing?

I would see them as composed within and primarily for communities. David Sim and Chris Tuckett have provided decent reviews of Bauckham's work.

 

[ebia]

As for manuscrips not surviving those sorts of dates. This is based on your poor education of manuscripts. I think its fair to compare it with the Quran and im not basing this on my personal faith. The Quran ahve manuscripts like the Sana'a manuscript dating to 15year after the death of Muhammad and are pre-uthmanic. So the argument you made is false.

The Quran is from 6 centuries later. The survival rate from the 7the century is massively greater; less time, better materials,... Moreover:

"The oldest manuscripts of the Quran still in existence date from not earlier than about one hundred years after Muhammad's death." Gilchrist, "Jam' Al-Qur'an", p. 153

Instead of saying what it is based on. Bring what it is based on(read my previous posts on this thread so i dont have to readress a point i already adressed). The gospels outside themself have no historical evidence of being 1st century. P52 is dated 125-150. As i said there is no evidence for the Gospels and you failed to bring any evidence for them.

You seem to depend on the number of scholars rather than the argument it self.

Academic truth is arrived at by academic debate amongst those who study the details and have the background, not by random people on Internet forums. The historians who actually study this stuff disagree with you.

–

I didnt know that untill a about 2 posts ago.

You do now, yet you continue. What does that imply about your integrity?

 

[ebia]

Even if Quran is from 6 centuries later there are massive factors that you ignored.

-The survival rate was not that much greater.

Yes it was. The earliest Christian texts were written on papyrus, which has a very short life before it disintegrates.

The oldest such dates from 125ad give or take - that's about 40 years after the gospel was authored on the other side of the Mediterranean.

Parchment - such as we find the earliest Koranic manuscipts on - is massively more robust and hence the survival rate for 7th century documents is much better.

Im asking you for the 1st hand source not for the historian nor scholary opinion

I'm not interested in convincing you. This is not a forum where you are allowed to engage in debate. I am point out to third party readers that your claim contradicts pretty much every expert in the field. They can decide which to give credence to - expert historians or a random Muslim apologetic who doesn't abide by the rules he agreed to.

 

[ebia]

The argument backed with historical evidence is more important than a argument backed by scholars who have no evidence for their claim.

People with the historical training and background to assess the evidence properly don't need me to tell them where to find it. BTW, there are plenty of historians studying the New Testament texts etc who are not Christian, or who are highly sceptical Christians.

If your faith has any integrity, follow the rules that you agreed to abide by. Why should anyone give credence to someone who cannot keep his word?

 

[ebia]

And most of those scholar belive the NT is not historical.

We aren't discussing whether the NT is "historical" (whatever one might mean by that) but when the various books that make it up were written.

1. Debating where you aren't even allowed to post
2. Moving the goalposts
What next?


There are always a few outliers, but the overwhelming consensus of academic historical scholarship is that the gospels and acts were written between roughly ad65 (mark) to ad 90 (John), And that at least the seven core pauline epistles are genuine. Bear in mind that there are many ancient books for which we have no manuscipt evidence for many centuries after its original authorship; physical manuscripts set a latest possible date and that's all.

 

[Iosias]

And the one with "historical training and background" attack the biblical figure of Jesus.

Then you're probably reading the wrong scholars; why not try N T Wright, James D G Dunn, Richard Bauckham, and Larry Hurtado?

 

[allah akbr]

If you are in doubt deep and still can not find the truth only kneel and say, O Lord, if you're an existing guided me

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

If you are in doubt deep and still can not find the truth
only kneel and say, O Lord, if you're an existing guided me

Good advice. You should try it

Isa 58:11
YAHWEH will guide you continually and satisfy your soul in drought and strengthen your bones;
You shall be like a watered garden and like a spring of water, whose waters do not fail.

1Cr 3:7
So then, neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase.
8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one, and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor.

 

[brinny]

This has been eating away at me so much lately:

Most everyone has come to the conclusion that the gospels were written about 50 years after Jesus death.. doesn't this mean that the writers were not eye witnesses of Jesus at all? Can't this have caused many false teachings based on illegitimate information written?

Were the writings possibly even a huge hoax?

I am a Christian but this has been causing me much doubt lately. Any replies are greatly appreciated. Thanks, God bless..

The bottom line is, do you TRUST God. Does He lie? Will His Word do as He says it will? (He says His Word will not return to Him void) Have you read the entire Bible? And do you take these doubts to Him? He also says that you cannot please Him unless you have faith. Do you?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The bottom line is, do you TRUST God. Does He lie? Will His Word do as He says it will? (He says His Word will not return to Him void) Have you read the entire Bible? And do you take these doubts to Him?
He also says that you cannot please Him unless you have faith. Do you?

Great post sis!



.