Dating the Gospels & Daniel

Again, I would advise you to read Edmundson before deciding that Edmundson is wrong.
Irenaeus' work is not extant in the original Greek. The version you link to is largely translated from the Latin. The translation of the text you gave is according to the Greek, because the Greek is used where it is extant (the Latin is used where it isn't). The Greek is extant at this point because it is preserved as a quotation in Eusebius. The Latin cannot mean 'the apocalypse was seen'. The Greek is ambiguous, and Edmundson explains why it is a mistake to understand the subject as the apocalypse. Right now you don't really understand his position, and that is not a good foundation to reject it. But if you are satisfied to reject it without reading/understanding it, that is your prerogative. I'm just pointing out where the argument can be found.

Bible Truth 53 said:

Again, I would advise you to read Edmundson before deciding that Edmundson is wrong.
Irenaeus' work is not extant in the original Greek. The version you link to is largely translated from the Latin. The translation of the text you gave is according to the Greek, because the Greek is used where it is extant (the Latin is used where it isn't). The Greek is extant at this point because it is preserved as a quotation in Eusebius. The Latin cannot mean 'the apocalypse was seen'. The Greek is ambiguous, and Edmundson explains why it is a mistake to understand the subject as the apocalypse. Right now you don't really understand his position, and that is not a good foundation to reject it. But if you are satisfied to reject it without reading/understanding it, that is your prerogative. I'm just pointing out where the argument can be found.

Click to expand...

Hi Bible Truth,
How can I agree or disagree with Edmundson when no one has articulated his position? I think I've gone out of my way to articulate mine. Since you believe him I would have thought you were going to articulate his position. I'm just saying that as of now no one has given me a reason to doubt the veracity of the statement in Book V that the Revelation "was seen in Domitian's time". I'm certainly not aware of any other Latin copies without it and everywhere else I search, no matter what University has anything different that the one I quoted to you.
Now from what I've been able to glean, part of the original Greek of Irenaeus work has indeed been preserved and this is not mere fragments of Eusebius, that you suppose, nor that of Hippolytus, Epiphanius, etc. What I have been able to gather via a somewhat lengthy internet search is that the Greek is only represented as a fair portion of Volume I only. The rest of the other five volumes all appear to be derived from Latin copies of the original work but certainly not fragments as you suggested. For the record Eusebius never quoted all of Volume V or much of Ireneaus writings in general. It is therefore the Latin text we are reading here and, as and far as I can tell, every Latin copy says the same thing in Volume V, Chapter 30, end of section 3. I don't have the time to go off and search for what Edmundson had to say about this right now but if you can articulate his position I'd be happy to evaluate. To be frank but respectful I'm not really convinced he's the expert on the subject, nor do I don't think there's anything conspiritorial or mistaken about the versions we have in our posession. I will put in in my queue however to at some point read his position. Here are some other sites I searched to find the other Latin copy you alluded to. Most house all five volumes of Irenaeus, although our immediate concern was with Volume V, Chapter 30 end of verse paragraph 3. Again all of these are "not" Eusebian fragment but represent Latin translations of Irenaeus original work as far as we know.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/irenaeus/advhaer5.txt
Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapters 19 to 31 | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
Five books of S. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, against heresies : Irenaeus, Saint, Bp. of Lyons, d. ca. 202 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive
Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 5 |
Five Books of S. Irenaeus: Against Heresies : Irenaeus : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive
Against Heresies : Irenaeus : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

May God Bless,
In Christ John 1720

John 1720 said:

[/COLOR]

Hi Bible Truth,
How can I agree or disagree with Edmundson when no one has articulated his position? I think I've gone out of my way to articulate mine.

Click to expand...

I still think you're not quite understanding the issue concerning the translation 'he was seen' versus 'it (the apocalypse) was seen'. But if you're ever interested in reading into it, you know where to go.

add to this Jerome's account, On Famous Men

Jerome said:

Ioannes apostolus, quem Iesus amavit plurimum, filius Zebedaei, frater Iacobi apostoli, quem Herodes post passionem domini docellavit, novissimus omnium scripsit evangelium, rogatus ab Asiae episcopis, adversus Cerinthum aliosque haereticos et maxime tunc Ebionitarum dogma consurgens, qui asserunt Christum ante Mariam non fuisse. unde et compulsus est divinam eius nativitatem edicere. sed et aliam causam huius scripturae ferunt, quod cum legisset Matthaei, Marci, et Lucae volumina, probaverit quidem textum historiae, et vera eos dixisse firmaverit, sed unius tantum anni, in quo et passus est, post carcerem Ioannis, historiam texuisse. praetermisso itaque anno, cuius acta a tribus exposita fuerant, superioris temporis antequam Ioannes clauderetur in carcerem, gesta narravit: sicut manifestum esse poterit his qui diligenter quatuor evangeliorum volumina legerint. quae res etiam διαφωνιαν, dissonantiam, quae videtur Ioannis esse cum caeteris, tollit. scripsit autem et unam epistolam cuius exordium est: Quod fuit ab initio, quod audivimus et vidimus oculis nostris, quod perspeximus et manus nostrae contrectaverunt de verbo vitae, quae ab universis ecclesiasticis et eruditis viris probatur. reliquae autem duae, quarum principium est: Senior electae dominae et natis eius, et sequentis: Senior Caio charissimo, quem ego diligo in veritate, Ioannis presbyteri asseruntur, cuius et hodie alterum sepulcrum apud Ephesum ostenditur, etsi nonnulli putant duas memorias eiusdem Ioannis evangelistae esse, super qua re cum per ordinem ad Papiam auditorem eius ventum fuerit, disseremus. quarto decimo igitur anno, secundum post Neronem persecutionem movente Domitiano, in Patmos insulam relegatus, scripsit apocalypsim, quam interpretatur Iustinus Martyr et Irenaeus. interfecto autem Domitiano et actis eius ob nimiam crudelitatem a senatu rescissis, sub Nerva principe redit Ephesum, ibique usque ad Traianum principem perseverans, totas Asiae fundavit rexitque ecclesias, et confectus senio, sexagesimo octavo post passionem domini anno mortuus, iuxta eamdem urbem sepultus est.
​

Click to expand...

John Dominic Crossan has provided a detailed classification of our sources for the historical Jesus according to the chronological stratification of the traditions. For a brief discussion of each source, including the reasons for its proposed dating, see John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus (HarperCollins, 1991) Appendix 1, pp. 427-50. All dates shown are C.E. (Common Era).


First Stratum [30 to 60 C.E.]

1. First Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians (late 40s)

2. Letter of Paul to the Galatians (winter of 52/53)

3. First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians (winter of 53/54.)

4. Letter of Paul to the Romans (winter of 55/56)

5. Gospel of Thomas I (earliest layer of Thomas, composed in 50s)

6. Egerton Gospel (50s)

7. P. Vienna G. 2325 (50s)

8. P. Oxyrhynchus 1224 (50s)

9. Gospel of the Hebrews (Egypt, 50s)

10. Sayings Gospel Q (50s)

11. Miracles Collection (50s)

12. Apocalyptic Scenario (50s)

13. Cross Gospel (50s)


Second Stratum [60 to 80 C.E.]

14. Gospel of the Egyptians (60s)

15. Secret Gospel of Mark (early 70s)

16. Gospel of Mark (late 70s)

17. P. Oxyrhynchus 840 (?80s)

18. Gospel of Thomas II (later layers, 70s)

19. Dialogue Collection (70s)

20. Signs Gospel, or Book of Signs (70s)

21. Letter to the Colossians (70s)


Third Stratum [80 to 120 C.E.]

22. Gospel of Matthew (90)

23. Gospel of Luke (90s)

24. Revelation/Apocalypse of John (late 90s)

25. First Letter of Clement (late 90s)

26. Epistle of Barnabas (end first century)

27. Didache (other than 1:3b2:1, 16:35) (end first century)

28. Shepherd of Hermas (100)

29. Letter of James (100)

30. Gospel of John I (early second century)

31. Letter of Ignatius, To the Ephesians (110)

32. Letter of Ignatius, To the Magnesians (110)

33. Letter of Ignatius, To the Trallians (110)

34. Letter of Ignatius, To the Romans (110)

35. Letter of Ignatius, To the Philadelphians (110)

36. Letter of Ignatius, To the Smyrneans (110)

37. Letter of Ignatius, To Polycarp (110)

38. First Letter of Peter (112)

39. Letter of Polycarp, To the Philippians, 1314 (115)

40. First Letter of John (115)


Fourth Stratum [120 to 150 C.E.]

41. Gospel of John II (after 120)

42. Acts of the Apostles (after 120)

43. Apocryphon of James (before 150)

44. First Letter to Timothy (after 120)

45. Second Letter to Timothy (after 120)

46. Letter to Titus (after 120)

47. Second Letter of Peter (between 125 and 150)

48. Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, 112 (140)

49. Second Letter of Clement (150)

50. Gospel of the Nazoreans (middle second century)

51. Gospel of the Ebionites (middle second century)

52. Didache, 1:3b2:1 (middle second century)

53. Gospel of Peter (middle second century)

PureDose said:

I keep running across people who date Daniel shortly before the time of Christ, and who date the Gospels as post-'destruction of the temple' without showing any evidence for their dating.

Daniel accurately predicts the world kingdoms following Nebuchadnezzar, and the struggles of Israel with Greece shortly before the birth of Christ. So, it is no surprise to me to find critical atheists claiming it is impossible for Daniel to have been written when it is claimed to be.

It is also no surprise to me to see critical atheists dating the Gospels after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple -- because Jesus accurately predicted these things. (Though Moses gave a blow by blow account of the fall of Jerusalem, but that is much harder to disclaim.)

But, I have been surprised to find that many believers are also doing the same sort of dating. I was angered by watching a recent believer based documentary on the Gospels which insisted on dating the Gospels so late without giving references whatsoever. They did not even bother to give alternate opinions and cited the same theologians who all agreed with each other.

It may even be that these theologians are unaware of how this dating is performed.

They just cite dates without thinking about it.

While I can see how we may be able to say "these documents came from the first century", I can not see how there is a scientific way to specifically date such documents "only after the destruction of the temple" without assuming that prophecy is impossible.

Daniel, is far more difficult. The Jews were very well written, and I would be deeply surprised if there is not strong evidence Daniel did not just magically appear so many years after it was claimed to have been written (at the literal time of Daniel under Nebuchadnezzar.)

Is this not just 'group think' and the problem of people being unable to accept that accurately predicting the future is possible?

Or am I missing some level of objective reasoning used here?

Click to expand...

I have been reading the book Paradigm and that deals with this issue. A paradigm is literal and exact and that is difficult for people who are accustomed to non literal metaphors. It would not matter when the Bible was written. What is important is the precision. Like a Blueprint needs to be precise to build the building.

The wise men knew when Jesus was going to be born from reading the Bible. They knew exactly when and where to find Christ Jesus. The exact place and the exact point in time. This shows how exact and precise a paradigm is. Daniel tells us that "after the sixty-two & seven weeks the Messiah will be cut off" (Daniel 9:26) 62 + 7 = 483 years. That is exactly when the "the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing." (NIV) We know the decree went forth to rebuild the temple in 457 BC. (In the seventh year of Artaxerxes) IF anyone doubts this, then they can go to the temple mount and test the stones to see when they were cut.

Daniel 9:25 "So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress."

This is all very exact and precise. A part of the foundation from Solomon's temple is still there but most of the wailing wall was from the second temple. So we know when those stones were cut.

A paradigm is very exact and precise. The paradigm tells us the exact place and the exact point in time. This shows us how God works in the lives of people today and an exact and precise way.

The Year 457 B.C. and it's Importance