ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 มิ.ย. 2024
- Skeptics like Bart Ehrman say that the Gospels were written between 70-100 AD. This leaves plenty of time for legendary development to happen. But what if I told you that the main reason for dating the Gospels late is not particularly good, and there's plenty of good reasons to date the Gospels early?
New Testament Studies Iv: The Date of the Acts and the Synoptics by Adolf Von Harnack books.google.com/books?id=SmZ...
The Case for Jesus by Brant Pitre amzn.to/2u0mGsB
On Pauline authorship and the Pastorals: capturingchristianity.com/aut...
My website: isjesusalive.com/
/ isjesusalive
Patreon:
/ isjesusalive
Reasonable Faith Chapter:
/ rfcedarrapids
I like this Sunday School!
Me too!
I wish i legitimately had topics like this at my sunday school/youth group
Yes we lack teaching this kind of knowledge. On almost every subject.
It is long past time that we taught more meat. Most Sunday School material stops at a 3rd grade level. Unconscionable!
Yes! My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge.
A brief, but powerful case for the early dating of the gospels. One of the problems we face, even among conservative scholars, is the general agreement on Markan priority. If Mark was written circa 66-70 AD as they claim, then clearly Mathew and Luke, who base their gospels on Mark, must be post 70 AD. Although some try to get round this by advocating an early Mark in the 40s, this flies in the face of tradition that has Mark using Peter as his source and writing in the 60s.
Perhaps we should take the claims of scholars with a pinch of salt. Sadly.many can't get over their anti-supernatural bias. One they accept the 'general scholarly consensus' they are down a rabbit hole out of which they cannot climb.
Believing in Markan priority doesn’t necessarily entail an anti-supernatural bias. I believe of the Gospels as we have them today, Mark was first and wrote down the testimony of Peter in the mid-60s on the basis of early tradition. The scholarly arguments for Q don’t have an essentially anti-supernatural element, either, just a close examination of the text of Matthew and Luke (despite many Q proponents being anti-supernaturalists). If we take the testimony of Papias and Irenaeus in the 2nd century seriously, then we understand Matthew to have written in Aramaic while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome. Parts of Matthew (like the Beatitudes) as we have it today translate quite nicely into Aramaic suggesting an Aramaic origin, but other parts suggest a Greek original due to the syntax.
I tend to subscribe to the view that Q is actually the original Aramaic proto-Matthew written by Matthew referred to by Papias and Irenaeus written in the early 60s while Peter and Paul were in Rome (following Irenaeus) and that Matthew as we have it today is the product of a translation and expansion of the original that made extensive use of Mark’s Gospel, likely (but not necessarily) post-70 AD; Papias does tell us that Matthew wrote in Hebrew/Aramaic, and that, “Each one translated as best he could,” (Papias is our earliest source of information about Mark and Matthew’s authorship; among other things he notes that the John said the events in Mark’s Gospel are out of order-it’s implied that this information was received directly from John, though it could have been secondhand). Though I believe it’s quite possible the translation and expansion would have been made after Matthew’s death, I see no reason why he shouldn’t have been integrally involved, either. Even if he weren’t involved in the translation and expansion, there is still a definite literary relationship between a supposed Aramaic proto-Matthew/Q and Matthew as we have it that simply doesn’t exist for Mark-Matthew is justifiably called the Gospel according to Matthew in a literary sense that could not be claimed by Mark for Peter.
@@augustinian2018 : It may not "necessaritly entail an anti -supernatural bias", but we all know that we cannot have Jesus making a prophecy about a Roman siege and the fall of Jerusalem. It is all 'ifs and buts'.
@@gerryquinn5578 Even early dating doesn’t generate a strong case for a siege prophecy. Someone in the first half of the 1st century AD predicting that there’d be a major uprising in Judea and a siege of Jersusalem in the second half is somewhat like someone predicting there’ll be a major hurricane that hits Miami or Galveston in the next 50 years-there’s not really a need to infer a supernatural element. There are arguments for early authorship like those of John A.T. Robinson which simply take note of that and move on. Judea was a powder keg and small violent messianic movements were relatively common. What was unique was a peaceful messianic movement where the messianic claimant was also worker of signs and wonders who also claimed the right to sit beside YHWH on the divine throne and be one with Him. Messianic claimants getting killed by the Romans was relatively common; after that happened, the movement would either disperse or choose a new “messiah.” Only once did the followers refuse both to disperse or to choose a new messiah, instead testifying that their messiah had risen from the dead and appeared to them multiple times in the flesh, ultimately sealing that testimony with their deaths.
There are some good arguments for early authorship, but there are also good arguments for slightly later authorship. 19th century higher critics might have fixated on the supernatural due to their unfamiliarity with second temple Judaism’s turbulent final century but that’s no reason we have to keep responding to dead Germans on that point. An argument for the dating of the Gospels really needn’t take supernatural prophecy about the destruction of the temple into consideration. Though whether or not the author seems to be aware of its destruction is potentially a relevant factor. Some of the better early dating arguments highlight the seeming silence in places about the destruction of the temple, though I think the evidence is ultimately indeterminate. I put greater stock in the testimony of the disciples of the disciples (and their disciples in some cases like Irenaeus) about who wrote what when and where, together with demonstrable literary relationships.
@@augustinian2018 : I agree with much you say. But who did the disciples of the disciples think wrote the gospels? Mathew, Mark, Luke .and John? And in what order?
@@gerryquinn5578 I incline toward (but do not firmly hold to the more controversial aspects of) the following on order, authorship, and dating:
(1) The Gospel according to Matthew (Aramaic v1) aka ‘Q’ was written by Matthew the apostle, the self-same one of the twelve, in the early 60s while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome.
(2) The Gospel according to Mark was written by John Mark, the former companion of Paul and interpreter of Peter, in the mid 60s shortly after Peter’s death.
(3) The Gospel according to Luke was written by Luke, the companion of Paul, somewhere between the mid 60s and early 80s (I do actually prefer an earlier dating for Luke and Acts-sometime shortly before Paul’s execution-but I don’t find the evidence conclusive one way or the other).
(4) The Gospel according to Matthew (Greek v2) was translation and expansion of Matthew (Aramaic v1) with the use of Mark’s gospel by a disciple of Matthew (as Mark was of Peter) somewhere between the late 60s and early 80s. The attribution to Matthew I believe is due to its extensive reliance on the Aramaic Matthew.
(5) The Gospel according to John was written in Ephesus in the mid 90s by John the presbyter, an apostle (in the same sense as Paul who also wasn’t one of the twelve) who referred to himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved, whom I’m inclined to believe was from Jerusalem or nearby it in Judea, possibly being a Levite or even a priest in the temple. (This probably sounds crazy, but there is actually a substantial case for believing that the man named John who wrote the Gospel according to John was not John the son of Zebedee; the author is never identified as the son of Zebedee within the text, and the 2nd century church fathers in Asia Minor where John wrote his gospel don’t identify the son of Zebedee as the author-the evidence from Asia Minor actually points against the son of Zebedee).
For all of the above I’ve written, there’s actually decent evidence in early/Ante-Nicene Christian writings like the fragments of Papias of Hierapolis, Polycrates of Ephesus, and Irenaeus of Lyons (as well as his intact works) that integrates nicely with the internal evidence of the gospels. The fact that no alternative names were ever proposed by the early church pretty much establishes that we have the correct names for the authors, even if the wrong John *might* have been identified with the Gospel according to John (and by far the most probably way the wrong John could have been identified is if the gospels were originally being transmitted with the names of the authors attached to the scrolls and later the codices, as Martin Hengel argued; attributing the Gospel according to John to the wrong John presumes that the person who misidentified him had the titular name John in front of him on the manuscript of the Gospel according to John-John appears to have been the fifth most common name among Jews living in Galilee and Judea in the second temple period and thereafter, being three times more common than James/Jacob, according to Richard Bauckham’s research in *Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony*).
(As I finished typing the second to last sentence, I had to giggle as right as I finished typing it, my six month old son, John Polycarp, spit up on my wife. He was due on the commemoration of Polycarp of Smyrna, a disciple of whichever John wrote the Gospel according to John, hence his first and middle names.)
I'm a Christian who you may call progressive or liberal (NOT in that I deny a literal God or Jesus's death and resurrection; if you claim Christianity and don't believe in that you're basically standing in the garage and insisting you're in the treehouse) and I appreciate this channel explaining your views and counterarguments so well.
For years I viewed "apologist" as almost a dirty word. I grew up conservative evangelical Methodist and adored apologetics. Then when their arguments were knocked down so easily by atheists I became embarrassed to even mention them. Y'all have such a better way of explaining than what I grew up with. It has be rethinking a lot of my views.
The only thing I don't like is when channels like these devolve into insults and attacks. I like that you don't do that. Kinda reminds me of Genetically Modified Skeptic; he's an atheist who presents his viewpoint in a respectful and compassionate way, as opposed to the smug "religion dumb" stuff I've come to expect from that crowd. Likewise, y'all voice your views without relying on cliches like "evolutionists just want to live in sin!" (I dont believe in a literal six day creation but you cant convince me the world wasnt made by God) Thank you for that.
what kind of liberal or progressive views do you hold to? And are they compatible with Christianity?
Brother, the smug "religion dumb" is something that GMS clearly does. You can watch the response of "Whaddo you meme" (I know, very goofy name, but good content nonetheless) to GMS, where you can clearly see that.
Anyways, why are you a progressive christian?
@@Samura1313 A lot of reasons I'm not gonna go into in TH-cam comments. Nothing against you specifically, youtube discussions with strangers just usually arent productive. I made my comment to compliment the channel and let the guy know he's reached people he may not expect. I'll argue and wrestle with it with people who know me personally.
My wife, son, and I were visiting friends in Oregon on March 24th, 2011. We spent the night, and on the morning of the 25th, she had a hyper-realistic vision/dream where an angel told her she was going to have a baby, and he pointed at December 15/16 on a calendar and said that was the due date, and then he pointed at September 14/15 and said nothing. A couple months later we discovered that she was pregnant, and his due date was first the 15th, and then updated to 16th of december (his name is John, and is 11 now). A google search said that the most likely time of conception was March 24th/25th. We started to get a ton of online sales for our business, and all of our debt went to zero on September 14th.. I'm just one of billions of people. I know God speaks to tons of people. I think sometimes God just pulls a "Blind man of Bethsaida" and doesn't provide that information to people who wouldn't believe it anyway. So, people who are hyper-skeptical get a skewed and incorrect view of reality.
But what would be the purpose? Many Prophecies are frequently (? check it up) about warnings. Not fortune telling. Hence in the church it is very dangerous following "fortune" telling prophets as this is the way they establish credibility. Satan (if you believe he is a real person and so are his angels) logically will be the most active in churches and education. Paul was was warned in Acts that he will suffer, and put in chains. Jesus warns the disciples that they will be persecuted and die , the warnings so that when it happens , they won't fall away. OT prophets were about warnings to Israel. Jesus parables were mainly warnings to believers. The 7 letters to the churches -- 5 were BIG warnings. Our God cares for the Kingdom not of this world which is given to Satan to test us.
Heya, found you through Standardised Apologetics.
Good subject this video, I wish you the best with your channel brother. Never actually occurred to me that a priori bias against prophecy would be a factor in how dating the gospels would be considered.
That said, there are many of us who do believe in prophecy and the supernatural who don’t find early dating to be the most probable explanation of the totality of our evidence. Though I do believe Mark dates to 62-66 AD-before the revolt-I believe Luke and Matthew (as we have it today) both were written/finalized after Mark (with the caveat that I’m one of those weirdos who think Matthew wrote the Q document in Aramaic somewhere between 60 and 64 AD, and that the Gospel according to Matthew was a translation and expansion with extensive reference to Mark; basically, the position is a marriage of the evidence for Markan priority with the testimony of the early church fathers who stood in the best position to know what they were talking about, e.g., that, “Matthew composed in the Hebrew [Aramaic] language the sayings of the Lord, and each one translated as best they could,” according Papias, who knew John, writing between 100 and 130 AD). That said, the arguments by modern scholars about Luke and Acts having been written earlier on the basis of what they omit are pretty good, but run counter to some of the more reliable post New Testament sources, to which I tend to give greater credence.
@@augustinian2018 what post new testimate sources show any evidence that the later dating of the gospels is true? Other writings referencing the gospels later than 70 AD doesn't do that, especially considering the sacking, and temple destruction would destroy most if not all immediate contemporary writings to the area.
You'd have to find some source that is known to be written before the 2nd century that outright says "yeah the composed the writings attributed to Mathew 5 years after Rome destroyed the temple" outside of something like that I fail to think of any evidence that places post sacking dates to any of the gospels.
I don't even agree that if the gospels were written around year 80, there'd be "plenty of time for legendary development to happen". Myths are created by the telephone game - a story is repeated down a long chain of people and is very different between the first and last person. But the telephone game doesn't work if the same person is at the beginning and end of the chain. The early church was run by the first followers. The same people were at the beginning and end of the chain
Couldn’t Jesus’ reference to the fall of the Temple and Jerusalem just be interpreted as an reference to Daniel’s prophecy of the 70 weeks? Anyone who knew about the Messiah would know the destruction of city and the sanctuary had long been linked to the cutting off of the Messiah.
I love the work you're doing. I've actually recently been thinking a lot of the fact the destruction of Jerusalem is connected with The return of Jesus. That to me is proof the gospels were written before 70 AD, or else they would have dropped the part about his return from the prophecy. Actually, I feel this point is so strong that it should be stand out in the evidence for Jesus, at least for him being a prophet. The fact that they all thought his return was at the door with the destruction of Jerusalem proves it was from Jesus.
It reminds me of the prophecies from the old testament that had a portion that was fulfilled in the near future and a fuller fulfillment in the distant future. Because it would be strange for people to save a prophecy for centuries if there was nothing to confirm it in the near future. So that to me is part of the purpose, that there needs to be something near to trust that it will be one day fulfilled.
The common scholarly view is that the Gospels are post-70CE texts that retain pre-70CE materials. That explains the inclusion of failed "this generation" apocalyptic prophecies as well as their awareness of the destruction of the Temple.
@@scottbignell I don't know how that explains the "this generation" prophecies. The return of Christ appears at close succession with the destruction of the temple in the gospels. Why would they have included those parts after the fact? That doesn't make any sense.
The wailing wall is part of that temple on map. Not complete fulfilled.
@@Charles-tv6oi We don't really know that. Ancient witnesses state that the temple was totally demolished and dug up to the foundations, and the results looked as though there was never anything there. It may have been part of a retaining wall of the platform on which the temple structure was built, or it may have been part of the Roman fort.
@@histguy101 either way it happens before the rest happens. Over course of time? I still think from maps it's part of temple.
Solid video. Stumbled on you through following Esther O'relly, then Lydia McGrew, and saw Lydia linked to a video from you. Love this apologetics approach
How do you have less than 10’000 subs? *checks sub counter* Whoa, less than a hundred? This is quality content, keep it up!
Ha. Thanks. Just getting started.
@@TestifyApologetics you're good, Erik - a true blessing; brilliant communication skills and thoroughly researched stuff presented with the humility of a first class scholar. You excel in history, for sure. I have a master's in history and often thought of getting a phd to bounce up my credentials in discussions with our opponents; but then again - the gospel was brought to us by a handful of fishermen, a tax collector, Thomas, just qualified as a twin - no occupation! Some zelotes and Paul - all bearing witness of a carpenter from Nazareth. Our Lord. Jesus Christ. Paul was probably the best educated, but - he never quit tent making to pay the bills... no prestigious employment or education to any of them. They just loved Jesus. Well, Jesus certainly had his hand on you! Thanks
4 years later at 48,000. Still 1/10 of what I would expect.
Hi I just found this channel and I really like the way the evidence is presented! I'm from Italy and here most of the people are either atheist or professing christians (their lives are really just like the world). Would it be okay for me to translate the slides that you show and use them myself? Anyway may God bless you and thanks!
I pray you reach as many people as you can brother, the world is quickly turning against God. Italy used to be the heart of Christianity once and now it’s fading. It’s sad. Here in India it continues to grow but there is high resistance met with hostility.
Great content - thanks.
Great teaching!
Thanks for the videos. God bless your ministry!
Love these video's!
This is wonderful! We need more videos like this!
Such awesome video!
I like these longer format videos. I think you should do more of these again!
Testify - hey man... God bless you for constantly lifting up Jesus!
Fine lesson... wonderful channel !
Keep up the good work.
Good stuff!
I am just glad there are people that will do the reading and research to address statements from people like Ehrman. He and so many others distort so many things to undermine Christianity. I am thankful for and appreciative of content like this. May God bless your efforts.
Anti-supernatural bias??? That's his argument??? BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Ummm... yeah? When that hits the fan for him, he tries to claim the gospels weren't even written by the people it says. Every single available manuscript we have links to the 4 gospels. People like Bart Ehrman want to discredit it because of the "wide variety," when in fact, there isn't a wide variety. The variety is in terms of whether it says "according to," or "the gospel according to." There's no basis of evidence for these claims that it was floating around without an author. Plus, all of the early churches had an incredibly hard time communicating since it was in the 1st century, so if it really was just floating around with no name, there'd be a variety of names for the gospels, and yet there aren't. This is backed even more by the fact that they didn't write their names on the codexs they wrote. They labeled them with something else so that when they were preserved, they knew who wrote them. So the lie that there was never an author and they just tacked the name on centuries later is easily refutable.
Great video
Thanks!
good video, Erik, thanks for sharing.
But... be careful about making your case from arguments from silence, of which you make quite a few. They are not necessarily invalid, but they are weaker arguments than others. I agree with Tim McGrew that a series of such arguments can make a decent cumulative case.
A few contrary thoughts...
The STORY of Acts comes to an end in AD 62 because the goal of the book was to get Paul to "the ends of the earth/Gentiles" - aka Rome. So literarily, there is no reason to include the destruction of Jerusalem, Paul's death, and so on. So one could argue that there Is good reason to leave those events out of Luke/Acts.
Also, I have never heard of Paul's death being dated 62-64, but rather during the Neronic persecution of 64-67. I'm curious as to why you'd ate it then.
Full disclosure - I DO accept earlier dates for the gospels (I think Luke did use Mark, and I think that proto-Luke (an early draft of Luke) was available to Paul when he wrote 1 Corinthians in ~AD56, thus a need for an early date for Mark (pre-56).
I think your argument of Paul quoting Luke as scripture is your strongest argument for a pre-AD 62 date for Luke. I also agree that the pastorals ARE Pauline, not later forgeries.
Also, I think the arguments from anachronism only work if the entire work is a late work. The gospels could be written later AND have accurate historical information that no longer would occur (like the temple tax, etc.)
I like the overall video, and to your credit, you state that many of these are weak arguments by themselves, and that you are making a cumulative case.
Thanks for the comment! In response, I'd say it's not arguing "Luke didn't say these things, therefore pre-70". There's a few considerations to keep in mind that I probably could have better articulated but the video was already getting long. There's the blow-by-blow nature of Luke's telling of the ship voyage and the arrival in Rome, which is positive evidence of his the way he works. There's also the summarizing nature of the end of Acts, which is odd. And there's the overall sense that Luke is the author of action, he's not necessarily theologizing. This action includes court action, which includes his appearance in front of Agrippa. When you consider these things together, with the fact that the outcome of Paul is an unknown, I think is a good argument from what we know about Luke, not the reverse.
Plus I don't think Luke was making an "ends of the earth" point by ending it in Rome. There were already brethen when Paul got there. (Acts 28.14)
Thanks again for the comment and I'm glad we're in agreement about the Pastorals being Pauline!
@@TestifyApologetics Could you do a video of the accuracy of Luke on the names and titles of the various rulers Paul encountered in his travels in Asia Minor? It was not easily gotten information, unless Luke was actually there when he said He was.
Also, I disagree with your previous writer on this thread...the omission of the destruction of Jerusalem, along with any reference to the struggles between Rome and the Jews is compelling to me. I think he underestimates the incredible value the ChristianJews put on the temple. The destruction of the temple, as well as the scattering and and disempowering of the Jerusalem church made a seismic shift in the personality of the Church. None of that seismic activity is recorded in Acts.
@@mikeyant2445 something like that is part of my plan
@@TestifyApologetics I made a Gospel Tract out of the Sir William Ramsay story...I have been pleasantly surprised at the interest I have seen in it.
You might do something on that as well. A human interest story surrounding these pertainate facts on Jesus Christ causes some to learn who would not have been overly interested in the technicalities of the historical Jesus.
The whole conventional late dating scheme of the NT in general is skewed and rests on very little, and follows a principle of "as late as possible unless there's undeniable evidence otherwise." And sometimes, it rests merely on convenience, such as with John. He doesn't have Jesus prophesy of the destruction of the temple, nor does it mention any of those events, yet it's dated to 95. Why? Because church tradition, but there are two early church traditions for John. One has him exiled during the reign of Domitian, the other during the reign of Nero, so the later date is chosen despite external and overwhelming internal evidence that it was written before the Jewish War.
Also Paul, who is dated pre-70ad, yet he makes the same predictions as Jesus concerning the coming events numerous times, as do the general epistles, but it's very difficult to take Corinthians or Thessalonians away from Paul.
It seems to me that the entire NT was written before 70ad, and before the death of Nero, which set in motion the ancient equivalent of a world war. People thought the empire was collapsing, and some apparently thought the world was ending, yet none of this is mentioned in the New Testament, and every book of the New Testament has the temple standing in Jerusalem, the Sanhedrin still in power, the sacrifices still continuing, and so forth.
I really enjoyed this... is there another link for the free book from Adolf because I have been trying and it doesn't seem to be available for free.
Hmm...the link in the description works for me. I clicked to add to my Google books and then it is searchable in my Google books app. I'm on Android.
@@TestifyApologetics yes I try the same, a version of the book appears but not for free. Oh well, thanks for the fast reply. Blessings
Great presentation: straightforward, clear and logical. I've watched a lot of videos on the topic and this is definitely one of the best. Thank you!
What book and page did albert Barnes say what he did?
Thanks
Doesn't Luke say "we" in Acts when Paul is sailing to places? I read some where that "we" was the pronoun used instead of "they" when referring to sea travel. Is this true?
Yes
Many of the books of the NT were originally written in Greek, If they were written later as some would argue they would have been written in Latin. The first century was at the end of the Greek empire, the beginning of Roman ascendancy. At that time Greek would still be the main international language.. Within a hundred years Greece had been reduced to a Roman province, and the language of international commerce was Latin, would remain so for another 400+ years.
Great video.
Consider also John 5:2-3, where all the verses describing the pool of Bethesda are in present tense, and would have made no sense to any audience if they were written after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD.
It would be like a writer today describing the NY World Trade Center twin towers in the present tense.
There is no proof that Babylon in revelation refers to rome
😂
Seriously, the only reason or the main reason the skeptics MUST date the gospels after 70ad is because of a pressupposition. Thats quite lame
They don't believe in accurate prophecy so far ahead of time. That would require belief in the supernatural. Scince the supernatural and such prophecy are fact but they don't believe in these real facts, they pick at straws and assume late days.
Does anyone know How exactly we know the destruction of the second temple happened in 70AD?
1. **Flavius Josephus**:
- **Writings**: "The Jewish War" and "Antiquities of the Jews"
2. **Tacitus**:
- **Writings**: "Histories"
3. **Suetonius**:
- **Writings**: "The Twelve Caesars"
4. **Talmud**:
- **Sections**: Various references within the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud
5. **Archaeological Evidence**:
- **Artifacts and Inscriptions**: Findings from excavations in Jerusalem, including remnants of the Roman siege works and ruins of structures.
I have solid data that validates this hypothesis.
Seeing as we don't have a full copy till much later, there nothing to say was not written before but had some parts added later.
Not true at all. The manuscripts found date 35 years after the original, and all of it equate to the NT. No real change could happen to it, especially since it was in the first century. All the manuscripts are pretty much the same in that sense.
This begs the question: If act has ben written in a time the apostles were still alive, why does it contain so many historical errors?
What historical errors? The ones that you believe are errors are probably not errors at all. Most such claimed errors are totally wrong.
What historical errors it has much of the opposite there are some great videos about how accurate it is even secular scholars would disagree with you
To "beg the question" is to use circular logic, that is, to have the conclusion in your premise. To "raise the question" is what you meant to say.
Modern scholars, and atheists in general, often run into the problem where they don't read the gospels and make theories. Instead they adhere to the theory that Christianity is false(without evidence) and then attempt to prove it. Ironically directly contradicting the scientific method which they claim to believe in
Last week, if I wrote a story about the Twin Towers, can the context of my story be used to date my writing pre-September 11, 2001?
If your writing was claiming to be a retelling of events like the gospels do, and you fail to mention the twin towers destruction on September 11th, then yes. It's a very reasonable conclusion to take your writings as pre Sept 11th 2001.
Atheist “scholars” seem to think everything abt the nt is supposed to be supernatural and miraculous-even the order they’re in
@anthonypolonkay2681 that is like time magic.
If only they'd thought to say when they were written.
Dating was not easy then; Luke dated his gospel well enough. He was a good historian. He tells us when Jesus was born.
The tradition of the early church, aka the extrabiblical sources by apostolic fathers and church fathers, tells us that the Gospel of Mark was written after Peter’s death, so it was not written before the 65, but after that date.
The Gospel of Luke, on the other hand, says that it was written at a time when the last remaining of the apostles is disappearing and many have already written about Jesus before Luke. This could be estimated between the years 70-80, when Christians have also wept over the fate of the Jewish temple.
Dunno why it took me so long to sub
Apollonius' stories were influenced by Christianity.
Can't accurately date things too old ,even evolutionists Niles Eldridge said in science journal in 70s
*The so called delay or slackness of Jesus coming is addressed in 2 Peter 3* essentially what is a day to the Lord is 1000 years to us Jesus always shows up on the third day so he will be back in a couple days aka 2,000 years. So what people call delay or slackness is just God's amazing patience that all who can will be saved aka the fullness of the gentiles.
In 2 Peter 3 and Psalm 90 we are told A day is like A thousand years and A thousand years is like A day with God and from God's perspective this is Scale and Ratio like maps have.
Below is 1,000 Years as days.
0-1,000 = Day 1 Adam falls
1,000-2,000 = Day 2
2,000-3,000 = Day 3
3,000-4,000 = Day 4 Jesus Arrives
4,000-5,000 = Day 5
5,000-6,000 = Day 6
6,000-7,000 = Day 7 Jesus Returns
Adam is Day 1 two full days later and Jesus Arrives does his work and than goes to heaven.
Jesus departs on Day 4 two full days later and Jesus returns.
Jesus on earth as a boy went missing found on the 3rd (24hr) day Jesus dead but was found living on the 3rd (24hr) day.
Mankind has never had to wait more than three days for God he always shows up on the 3rd day.
Jesus work on the cross was done almost two complete Days ago (2,000yrs) we will not have to wait much Longer.
The gospels were written within a couple years of Jesus's resurrection.Jesus verbally commissioned that the gospels be published to the whole world,that means He told His deciples to take care of that.inctheir life time,while it was fresh in their minds,They just haven't been found yet,but they will be,and again,the world will be fools like always.
Super realistic take. A couple years is a realistic time to plan out and write a long account. Especially when they’re going out and preaching everyday
AT BEST Manning's video points out that some sayings and traditions in the canonical gospels might pre-date 70CE. But it does not follow that the Gospels are therefore entirely a product of a pre-70CE period. It just means they occasionally preserve some earlier material. But even the supposedly hard-nosed skeptic Bart Ehrman, whose views Manning is attempting to argue against, accepts that the canonical gospels contain early, pre-70CE, traditions. So the video essentially creates a strawman of Ehrman's views to punch down by not articulating this important nuance of Ehrmans' views to his viewers.
I don't find the common apologetic argument for dating Luke-Acts to the 60sCE on the basis that it does not mention Paul's death at all convincing. The latter chapters of Acts certainly imply an awareness of Paul's impending death. Robert M. Price puts the argument to bed nicely:
"[Apologists often argue that] if the author of Acts knew of Paul’s heroic martyrdom, why the heck didn’t he even mention it? Oh, but he did. The whole narrative structure of Acts parallels Paul’s career with that of Jesus: both undertake an itinerant preaching mission, performing healings and exorcisms, only to wind up at the Jerusalem Temple, sparking a disturbance there, which leads to arrest by the Romans and trials before the Jewish Sanhedrin, Herodian kings, and Roman procurators. You mean this writer didn’t know Paul wound up being put to death by Rome? If that weren’t enough, Paul even makes Passion predictions (Acts 20:22-25; 21:10-14). Do you seriously believe the author did not only know that Paul was dead as a doornail but that his readers already knew it, too? And do we even know when Paul died? The only indications are found in the anonymous and undateable 1 Clement and the grossly legendary Acts of Paul. In other words, we don’t know."
- "Holy Fable Vol.2", EPUB edition, location 3663
Regarding Mark 13:14-18's command to those in Judea to "flee to the mountains" without looking back and to "pray that it may not be in winter", this strikes many scholars as a reference to the events of late (i.e. winter) 67CE. To quote Francis J. Maloney: "In the winter of 67, as the Zealots were temporarily confined to the inner court of the temple, escape was possible. According to Josephus (J.W.4.99), at that time a number of groups saw that they must escape" - "The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary", p.261. As such, the detail makes perfect sense in a post-67CE setting.
It is interesting also to note how Manning quotes Irenaeus as "external evidence" for dating the Gospel of Matthew to a time when Peter and Paul were still alive (i.e. prior to ~65CE). Manning quotes the following portion from Irenaeus as follows:
"Matthew also issued a written gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, laying the foundations of the church ... "
But Manning then FAILS to continue on with the rest of what Irenaeus immediately says about when he thought Mark was composed:
"... AFTER THEIR DEATH, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, handed on his preaching to us in written form" (emphasis added)
This means Irenaeus dates Mark to the same time Ehrman does - c.65-70CE. Such conveniently selective quoting here makes me think Manning is not being as objective as he could be. This is either a very dunce oversight or he's not being entirely honest.
I surely also don't need to point out the well known problem that Irenaeus' description of the Gospel of Matthew (as a Hebrew text) is evidently not the text we are familiar with (a Greek one dependent on the Greek Mark). All in all, Irenaeus is pretty useless evidence here.
At the end of the day, the canonical gospel's awareness of the destruction of the Temple remains a generally solid reason for dating the completion of the Gospels as we know them to a post-70CE period. One doesn't need to have a bad case of "anti-supernatural bias" to see this. Even conservative Christian scholars like Craig Evans accept the dating of Mark to c.65-70CE and that Matthew and Luke are dependent on it. Good luck trying to pin him as one with an "anti-supernatural bias"!
wish I'd been there for the meetings when the Gospel authors were trying so hard to invent the conspiracy to seem like they were writing before 70AD when they were actually writing after it just so that people hundreds or thousands of years later would be confused.
@@vedinthorn There's no conspiracy required. The Gospels seem to be products of a post-70CE period, based on inherited traditions.
@@scottbignell they have an awful lot of hallmarks of works completed well before then as well as a pretty good amount of external writers that would force us to date them earlier if we think they had any idea what they were talking about. And they only have one tiny thing that maybe dates them later than that. Weak arguments are weak in my opinion.
Matthew - c. 45-50 C.E.
Mark - c. 60-65 C.E.
Luke - c. 56-58 C.E.
John - c. 98 C.E.
Lea, Thomas. The New Testament: Its Background and Message. B&H Publishing Group.
Norman Geisler. Popular Survey of the New Testament.
It's probablly that the gospel of Mark was written in 37 b.C.
@@j.victor No, it is Matthew
THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS IN THE ANCIENT CHURCH: THE TESTIMONY TO THE PRIORITY OF THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW
christianpublishinghouse.co/2016/10/18/the-synoptic-gospels-in-the-ancient-church-the-testimony-to-the-priority-of-the-gospel-of-matthew-f-david-farnell/
Why would you put Luke before Mark?
Also, how do you date the Revelation?
Why are you using C.E and not AD sell out
@@qaz-fi1id Chill out my dude, you are straining at a gnat and missing the whole point of the comment.
I highly doubt that Mr. Ehrman was saved in the first place. If he had the Holy Spirit, he would never have gone down the route that he has gone down. Perhaps he lies about his Christian past to give his writings and views - addressed to a non-believing audience - more legitimacy
5:42 If we are assuming that the Gospels were written after the destruction of the temple and also that the prophecy was indeed made by Jesus, a couple things become true. Paul has already founded churches, and Christianity is already a growing religion. Christians are talking a lot about Jesus and know a lot about what Jesus said, from the stories passed on through word of mouth. If this prophecy was truly from jesus and especially if it was fulfilled, the early Christian world would likely be alight with word of it.
In this case, neglecting to mention the fulfillment of the prophecy would be unthinkable.
If, however, we assume it didn't originate with Jesus and instead was put into his mouth by the Gospel accounts, it suddenly becomes reasonable for the Gospels to leave out it's fulfillment. The Gospel authors fullwell know the early Christians have no idea of this prophecy, so they decide instead of spoon feeding it, by stating the prophecy was both made and fulfilled in short order, it's left to the reader to piece together that the prophecy was fulfilled. It is both more poetically palatable and far less heavy handed, which would help to sooth the minds of Christians who knew much of Jesus's teaching but never heard the prophecy before. This and the Gospel authors don't want to date their gospels to decades after the death of Jesus. They wish their readers to consider the Gospels well informed, if not first hand accounts. Thus, they wish their readers to believe they were made not long after the events took place.
Sorry. What is the evidence of dating any parts of the NT text in the 1st century? I heard a lot of NT reading. What is the actual evidence? I have read many recent books about past events. The content of those writings cannot be used to date when they were written. I just don't understand all the tangents of this video.
You can use content of writings to see when things date what do you mean?
@@j.gstudios4576 no you cannot. An experienced fraudster writer in the 4th century could make it seem something was written 1st century, especially when you don't have the originals.
@@ericcraig3875 not rlly as in the 4th century you would have to have knowledge of the customs and things that were going on around that time but there wasn't any Google or anything to search up so you really had to look to make sure you get your research right. And who in the ancient world has time to do that. What do you think is more important. Faking accounts for apparently no reason or working to feed your family. I'll let you decide
@@j.gstudios4576 you think the NT has the customs down?
@@j.gstudios4576 lots of people had time, please. Nobody had time...lol. An honest group had time, but it was impossible for a dishonest group. Lol. This reminds me of the person who claimed nobody wrote about j around the time of his claimed life, because there were no writing instruments available..lol
The usual reason for the late authorship of the Gospels is the methodology. People wanting to date them early look at the internal content. Most scholars date them by looking at when early Christian sources mention them. In reality it does not matter when they were written. The Gospels are documents written by partisan figures whose aim it was to spread a religion. This of course does not meant that they were false. What it does mean is the degree to which you find them convincing depends on where you line up. If you are a Christian they are the words of God. If you are Hindu or a Buddhist or a non believer they are propaganda tracts which fall short of being convincing history
If a man who claims to be God makes a super specific prophechy about a future event does it not make his claim true?
@@constantineofamerica1555 no
@@nielnielsen4822 sí
Yeah, not at all whatsoever. Let me start off by saying they were not trying to start a religion. What they were proclaiming about jesus got them persecuted and killed by the Roman's. The fact that they mentioned the eyewitnesses means it was verifiable in that time. Those people saw Jesus risen, and because of this, they preached it. That got them killed. Also, they accounts were made before 50 years after Jesus' death. A myth of this size takes a lot longer than that to form, especially when people are still alive to refute them. If it were a lie and they knew it, they wouldn't have taken the chance of death, especially since they gained nothing from it.
This apologetic completely misses the point.. If I was to form a religion and I needed to claim early prophesy, I would base all my writings circa the time of the prophesy being made. Thats how fiction is written! If I, for instance, wanted to claim prophesy of 9-11 I would base my writings some time before 9-11. You can try and tap dance your way around biblical issues for a month of Sundays but it is still just a story which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.. You have faith but that is all you have and faith is the most dishonest path to truth there is.
Yeah, not at all whatsoever. Let me start off by saying they were not trying to start a religion. What they were proclaiming about jesus got them persecuted and killed by the Roman's. The fact that they mentioned the eyewitnesses means it was verifiable in that time. Those people saw Jesus risen, and because of this, they preached it. That got them killed. Also, they accounts were made before 50 years after Jesus' death. A myth of this size takes a lot longer than that to form, especially when people are still alive to refute them. If it were a lie and they knew it, they wouldn't have taken the chance of death, especially since they gained nothing from it.
Matthew wrote Jesus as a king. Mark wrote Jesus as a servant. Luke wrote Jesus as a man. And John wrote Jesus as a messiah. Galatians is the first book of the New Testament ever written. Saint Paul never heard of the gospels or he never knew of their existence.
Do you seriously think the disciples referred to the 4 gospels as gospels?
@@ntkmw8058 I do not know that information. Neither does the church.. contrary to popular belief? The church do not know where the Scriptures came from. The Scriptures are pre-church era.
@@ntkmw8058 No, I believe they referred to them as scriptures.
What's this "they" stuff? You're not aware of the pronoun "he"?