I think these are very late dates. You should give sources for such information. Most scholars would give the Gospels earlier dates than that. What dates do you assign to Paul?
Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus
- Thread starter Nick227
- Start date
- Status
Belz...
Fiend God
Works for me.
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,449
Since I can easily take that as agreement or disagreement, which did you mean?
You must give the sources for Scholars who "give" dates to the Gospels.
Where do Fundie, Christian and Bible Believing Scholars get their dates for the Gospels so that they can argue for an HJ?
You should give the sources for those early dates.
May I remind you that there is no supporting corroborative evidence for the entire NT Canon before c 70 CE.
All writings which mention the books of the Canon are themselves dated sometimes hundreds of years AFTER the earliest recovered NT manuscripts.
RationalWiki gives the current estimates as
Thus there is no suggestion that the "entire NT canon" is datable to pre 70 AD. Now you can tell me who you believe forged it in the late second and fourth centuries.
What proof have these scholars offered for these early dates?
In all the literature I have see an early date is thrown out there but nothing on how the scholar got there is ever presented.
Rationalwiki has no reference for those dates. Wikipedia has dates with references (Gospel):
Mark: c. 65–73
Matthew: c. 70–100
Luke: c. 80–100
John: c. 90–110
"Acts is attributed to the author of the Gospel of Luke, which is believed to have been written before Acts, and therefore would shift the chronology of authorship back, putting Mark as early as the mid 50s. Here are the dates given in the modern NIV Study Bible:
Matthew: c. 50 to 70sMark: c. 50s to early 60s, or late 60sLuke: c. 59 to 63, or 70s to 80s
John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50s to 70"
I agree that the idea the Gospels are forged in the late second and fourth centuries is off the wall. Against Heresies is c180 and quotes extensively from what would become the canonal Gospels so logic would indicate that they had to exist before that date. Marcion's attempt to create a Bible with "Luke" c140 pushes the date back. But that is as far as we can prove regarding the date of any Gospel; any date before the 130s is speculation.
Last edited:
Perhaps. But not completely unfounded speculation. There is for example the Rylands fragment, usually dated to the time you have given. If it is genuine and contains words from gJohn, then the Synoptics are presumably earlier still. This is not certain of course, but it is not mere unfounded guessing.
It has often been pointed out that myths can develop very speedily, so that a relatively early date for the gospels doesn't necessarily argue for their accuracy. Except, that is, for the preposterous fundie view that they were written immediately after the event by eyewitnesses inspired by God.
Again, those dates are assumptions. They are based on Chinese Whispers and may have been compiled by Fundies.
All the dates for the Pauline Corpus and books in the NT are in fact bogus and could not be accurate.
Please, identify the corroborative evidence that was used to date the 27 books of the Canon.
There is no corroborative evidence, no artifact, no archaeological evidence to support any date of the NT books before c 70 CE.
Stop repeating gibberish so interminably. Ample internal evidence from Paul, referring to pre-70 AD persons and situations, has been presented here. You don't need to accept it, but you can't say it doesn't exist or hasn't been referred to in these threads.
And for the hundredth time:
What do you mean by "Chinese whispers"?
Where is the evidence for your second and fourth century forgers of the entire NT?
Stop repeating Chinese Whispers. It is virtually impossible to use copies of copies of copies of copies to date the books of the NT with a margin of error 5 -10 years.
There is no evidence at all to support any of the dates from your source.
There is a list of the New Testament Papyri that have been recovered and dated and none of them are dated to the 1st century pre 70 CE.
The earliest dated Codices of the NT are not from the 1st century and not pre 70 CE.
Please, do some research before you plaster bogus dates for the NT books.
How in the world can Acts of the Apostles be used to date the Pauline Corpus when Acts is of unknown date of authorship, an established source of fiction which never even mentioned the Pauline letters?
How in the world can the Pauline writings riddled with forgeries and historical problems be used to date ITSELF without external corroboration?
Please, those dates are bogus products of Chinese Whispers and produced by extremely poor Scholarship.
Scholars have already discovered the Pauline Corpus were composed no earlier than the 2nd century.
Scholars have already admitted that the Gospels were NOT written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
See Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" .
Last edited:
Given that others reference and even quote Paul (ie Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians and Philemon) long before our best manuscript (Papyrus 46 at 175-225 CE) there is no reason to assume Paul is later then the traditional c52-c67 CE time frame.
ironically it is one of these other people, Clement of Rome (a man who would have been a contemporary of Paul), who in his Epistle of Clement to James indicates the 'James brother of Jesus who was called Christ' in Josephus is not genuine:
"Clement to James, the lord,(895)...
895 More probably “the Lord’s brother.” ie James the Just
The letter talks about Peter’s Martyrdom so James the Just had to be alive when this letter was written. The earliest date for Peter’s Martyrdom is 64 CE...or two years later then the James in Josephus. Ergo the James in Josephus can NOT be James the Just.
Last edited:
Your statement is in error. Assumptions are not acceptable methods of dating writings of antiquity.
There is NO reason to assume the Pauline Corpus was composed before c 70 CE when the authors themselves NEVER even claimed they did.
The sources that you claim quote Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians and Philemon are themselves undated and without secure provenance.
What is the earliest recovered dated copy of Ignatius or Clement?
What is the earliest writings to mention Ignatius or Clement?
May I also remind that neither Ignatius or the supposed Clement letter claimed Paul wrote letters pre 70 CE.
maximara said:
Again, you seem not to realize that it was an Anonymous letter that was attributed to Clement of Rome.
That Anonymous letter itself has not ever been dated to the 1st century and of unsecured provenance.
The Anonymous letter attributed to Clement is in a far worse condition than the Pauline writings.
It is virtually impossible to use an anonymous letter of unsecured provenance to date any writing of antiquity.
It is virtually impossible to prove the anonymous letter attributed to Clement was written in the 1st century.
In fact, at least FIVE apologetic sources show that the Anonymous letter could not have been written by Clement c 95 CE and that the Anonymous letter was unknown up to the 5th century.
Tertullian, Optatus, Rufinus, Augustine of Hippo, and the Chronograph of 354 place Clement as bishop around c 67-69 CE.
Last edited:
David Mo
Philosopher
You interpret this text incorrectly. "According to the Scriptures" refers to first part of paragraph, it is to say, to the death, resurrection and sins forgiven. But it is not applicable to the rest. There is no passage of the Scriptures where you can find the enumeration of the appearances coming next and the grammatical structure of the paragraph implies other sources.
The simple common sense dictates that Paul suggests that these sources were informants of the James and Peter circle, if not they.
Other different thing is to evaluate the accuracy of Paul's testimony, or those of the informants. But the meaning of the paragraph is clear for me.
Last edited:
I asked
But evidently I am to receive no reply. Merely further repetition of the expression with chatbot-like indifference to anything anyone says to you. Also, there is no possibility of my receiving any reply at all to my second question, is there?
David Mo
Philosopher
I don't want in no way argue that the general overview is plausible and some particular details are false. I have said that you can start from the general legendary character of the Gospels and wait and see if somebody introduces a subject worthy of further consideration.
This is a hypothesis. But it crashes with the argument of difficulty. If someone had invented a heavenly Jesus, be Paul or any other, the account would be more harmonious than actually is. Beginning with the crucifixion and some other passages who speak about swords and fights, and so on, there are some screeches in the Gospels that contradict a personal invention.
The post-pauline writers trying to manipulate a previous material is a more plausible scene for me. How old might be this previous material sets out a different debate. Some new Christian questers hasten to proclaim "the authentic Jesus" every time they find some of these materials. This is an illusory and never proved claim. And the evidence that these materials are often strongly contradictory suggests different sources than a unique "Jesus".
Can we find the "genuine Jesus" between these diverse Jesus? I'm very sceptical about it.
eight bits
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
David
What is at stake in the bulshification of the 1 Corinthians appeaances narrative is that since Paul had a natural source for his list of who else saw the ghost before he did, then he was preaching something which he received and passed on, and which he didn't receive "from no man." That would imply that the denialist-critical Galatians description of the sources for Paul's "gospel" referred to something more specific than everything he ever preached.
This point cannot be conceded, since the "Paul knows only visions and Jewish scripture" house of cards will not stand acknowledgement of this obvious "exception" to the "rule."
Of course, there is no rule at all. Even in Galatians itself, Paul preaches that he had natural face-to-face meetings with other men on Earth, reached agreement about doctrine with those men, and preached to one of those men in Antioch. None of those events are in Jewish scriptures, either. The source of this preaching is recited in the preaching itself: Paul had meetings with natural men, where religious doctrine was discussed, argued about and sometimes agreed upon - in order for the doctrine discussed to find its place in Paul's later preaching.
What is at stake in the bulshification of the 1 Corinthians appeaances narrative is that since Paul had a natural source for his list of who else saw the ghost before he did, then he was preaching something which he received and passed on, and which he didn't receive "from no man." That would imply that the denialist-critical Galatians description of the sources for Paul's "gospel" referred to something more specific than everything he ever preached.
This point cannot be conceded, since the "Paul knows only visions and Jewish scripture" house of cards will not stand acknowledgement of this obvious "exception" to the "rule."
Of course, there is no rule at all. Even in Galatians itself, Paul preaches that he had natural face-to-face meetings with other men on Earth, reached agreement about doctrine with those men, and preached to one of those men in Antioch. None of those events are in Jewish scriptures, either. The source of this preaching is recited in the preaching itself: Paul had meetings with natural men, where religious doctrine was discussed, argued about and sometimes agreed upon - in order for the doctrine discussed to find its place in Paul's later preaching.
Well, first of all, leaving aside the fact that nobody here has ever seen the actual fragments of the earliest copies of what was actually written, so that we are all relying on translations made by various people, and hence we don’t really know exactly which words were originally written or what any important punctuation or emphasis really was, such that it may have changed the meaning etc. etc. …
… what that Wiki quote above actually says, is exactly what I said it says. And it does not say what you say at all! It makes no mention at all of Paul obtaining any information about Jesus as a result of being told about it by anyone else such as James, or Peter or anyone … nothing at all like that is mentioned or implied in any way at all. So any suggestion of that kind is a total non-starter.
Whereas, in fact, what the quoted passage very explicitly does say, exactly as I had just said to you, is that Paul makes clear (twice, and he repeats it!), that what he is telling his readers, is known to him from the “SCRIPTURES” …
.... below is the same passage again with highlights for emphasis; in which respect notice the word “received” as well as the words “according to the scriptures”, and compare that with next following quote below from Galatians where Paul specifically says that he obtained the beliefs that he preaches about Christ because he “received” it from Jesus Christ, and he explicitly stresses that his gospel belief was “not of human origin” and was “not received from ANY man” but came to Paul instead as “received it by revelation from Jesus Christ”, of which he further explains it by ultimately saying-
“ God, … was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being.”
In other words, what those two quotes from Paul actually say, is exactly what I said it was. And not remotely in any sense at all what you had claimed about it ever saying that Paul had ever said that any human people had told him about Jesus.
OK, so … see the two quoted passages again below and note the highlighted emphasis of what Paul’s words actually do say -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_Paul_the_Apostle
“ For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
— 1 Cor. 15:3–8, NIV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_Paul_the_Apostle
The conversion in Paul's letters
I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being.
Belz...
Fiend God
You said the definition didn't work for anyone. It works for me, obviously.
Belz...
Fiend God
So now we're up from evidence to proof ?
- Status