This is the first post examining the manuscript and Scriptural evidence for an early dating of the four Gospels. Again the author is looking for both positive and negative feedback, as well as spirited good-natured debate with those that may not agree with his opinions. All posts will be allowed provided they are civil and use appropriate language (inapporpriate language will be removed, but the post will not).
Can the Gospels be Dated Early?
by XJW4EVR 19 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Ding
Lee Strobel has a whole chapter on this in The Case for Christ.
-
XJW4EVR
I've read Strobel's chapter, but this comes at the issue from a different perspective.
-
notverylikely
Well, in the first sentence of the link you provided there are at least three cases of loaded language, four in the second and three in the third, so that calls it into question from the outset.
-
XJW4EVR
Considering the fact that the author made is case against Bart Ehrman in previous posts your assertion of loaded language does not follow.
-
notverylikely
Considering the fact that the author made is case against Bart Ehrman in previous posts your assertion of loaded language does not follow.
It doesn't matter who it's against, I have no idea who Bart Ehrman is. I just went to the link and saw a shitload of loaded language.
-
XJW4EVR
Well, Bart Ehrman is the leading authority on textual criticism, and has written a number of books on the New Testament. The author dealt with him in previous posts. Therefore your unwarranted assertion of "loaded language" does not follow. Now if you wish to demonstrate what statements were appeals to emotion, I might be willing to listen. By the way did you leave your comments on the author's blog?
-
Farkel
Has anyone dealt with the simple question of whether Jesus was or was not illiterate? Were families of carpenters 2,000 years ago literate generally, or not? My little knowledge of history tells me that only the classic professions were literate two millenia ago: law, clergy, physicians.
I think this is an interesting question because obviously, his "followers", i.e. the Gospel writers "were" literate: a tax collector, a fisherman, a doctor (who was not an apostle at all). Even a dummy like me must wonder if a fisherman was worthy of an education, but the son of a carpenter was maybe not worthy, or maybe neither of them were worthy, OR both of them were worthy.
What does anyone know about this subject?
If Jesus was illiterate, this creates a whole new subject of debate. After all, he WAS supposed to be the firstborn son of the God who created everything. If the God who created everything wouldn't even let his own firstborn of all HIS creation learn to read and write, yet let him give messages that were supposed to transform the entire planet and explain the will of God Himself, then this subject should be debated by those of us who can.
Second, if this same God only chose imperfect and non-divine followers of Jesus who WERE literate to write about what Jesus did some 40-60 years later (because Jesus was illiterate), then this problem should be debated, too.
Me? Bible-God is either a major screw-up or a cynical comic.
Farkel
-
Leolaia
Well, if the author states that he wants to shut the mouths of the critics, he should at least confront the arguments the critics give against his claims, otherwise he is just preaching to the choir.
Just a few brief comments:
1) There is a serious logical problem involved in the author's use of the apostolic fathers. The author wants to emphasize that the gospels utilize the testimony of eyewitnesses and at the same time he claims that books like 1 Clement and Ignatius "quote" from the gospels, without considering the possibility that these works embody Jesuine sayings circulating orally in the Christian community. The postulation of eyewitnesses automatically raises a non-literary oral source of these sayings, as we know that dissemination of teaching was primarily oral (see, for instance, Acts) and the teaching of Jesus as related by apostles and disciples would have been shared orally, not only via a written gospel (cf. agrapha not found in any written gospel and cf. Papias' attitude towards the oral teaching of the apostles and disciples). Literary studies of the apostolic fathers and the epistles of the NT (such as by H. Koester) show that we don't have formal quotations from the gospels but allusions of oral character that freely phrase sayings without evidence of literary dependence on a specific written text.
2) The same issue revolves around the author's use of Paul. Paul's reference to the kerygma about Jesus' life and death and resurrection does not entail a literary dependence on written gospels. He is just repeating what was already being taught by Christians at the time; his claim that Jesus was crucified and resurrected does not depend on any written gospel. I know the author of the piece indeed recognizes that Paul learned from the apostles and disciples, but what I am calling attention to is the lack of relevance of this to the dating of the written gospels. The exception is Paul's narrative of the Last Supper in Corinthians, which bears an unmistakable similarity with the version in Luke. But the author simply asserts that the direction of dependence was Luke -> Paul without considering the possibility that Luke, composed from available narrative accounts of Jesus, was dependent on Paul or on a liturgical tradition that Paul represented (nor is there mention of the variable text tradition, with Luke 22:19b-20 as a Western non-interpolation).
3) The author also claims that there is absolutely no reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 without commenting on the Lukan revision of the Markan synoptic apocalypse, which most critics regard as indicating a date after AD 70 (whereas the Markan version is often dated prior to AD 70).
4) The date of Acts is fixed to AD 64 because the narrative of the book stops at this point in time. This datum is not conclusive (as there are many other reasons given in the critical literature of why the book stops there), and there should be some discussion of the arguments given by scholars for a later date (e.g. the possible use of Josephus, the allusion to the events of AD 66-70 in Luke, the prequel for Acts, etc.)
5) The reference to Jose O’Callaghan's discredited claim of finding a Qumran fragment of Mark is especially conspicuous. These claims have widely been dismissed on papyriological grounds (see Fee [JBL 1973], Gundry [JBL 1999], Forster [JGrChJ 2005], etc.), and E. A. Munro [RevQ 1997] has shown that five Greek fragments from Cave 7 (including the fragment identified by O'Callaghan as from Mark) are in fact fragments of the Epistle of Enoch from 1 Enoch (and are thus now labelled as 7QpapEn gr).
These points are made not to make an argument for a specific datation, but to point out that the argumentation in the blog is rather superficial.
-
Psychotic Parrot
Lee Strobel is a deluded moron.