I am puzzled at how anyone could arrive at such a late date for the composition on the New Testament. There is no compelling reason( with the exception of perhaps John) to date any book later then 70 ad, this time period being obviously a lot less then the 200 years as suggested in this forum.
I believe Mark was not finalized until after the Fall of Jerusalem (70 AD) In Mark, the mythical Jesus makes reference to the fall of Jerusalem. MOST impartial scholars date Mark to around 70 AD. For people with an xian agenda, yes, the earliest date the better. However Justin Martyr writing in 150 AD knows nothing of ANY of the gospels. Matthew/Luke (90 AD) and John (120 AD)
The hypothetical document quelle is accepted as having been written in the mid ad 50 range.
The Q Document is supposedly the sayings of Jesus. Why would this be written 20 years after he died. If anything Q was the sayings of an insignificant sage from the time of his life - significant to his meager followers - but insignificant in history.
Mark is next in order,
I would say Q (30 AD), then Paul (50 AD) then Mark (70 AD)
but to properly date this one needs to first arrive at a date for luke-acts,
Acts was written 100 years after Paul
though seperate pieces, they were written by the same author.
Most definitely not
Acts should be dated no later then 62AD because it does not contain any of the following information.
a.) Fire of Rome
b.) Death of Paul
c.) Death of Peter
d.) Death of Judas
e.) First Persecutions of Nero
f.) Fall of Jerusalem
All of these events would have had a major impact on the church, and the best explanation for the author of acts not having mentioned it is the fact they had not yet occured.
Not true
[/b]The book of luke is dependant on the book of mark. So if luke was written in 60AD ( I am not asserting Luke-Acts, though by the same author, was composed at the same time) then logically Mark has to be written earlier, a date of approx 58 AD [/b]
You are under the influence of some mighty bias xian research! With research like that, next you will claim dinosaurs were on the Ark!
John has no textual relationship to the synoptics. While it can be dated later( church tradition does state that John was not marytred for his faith, he died of old age)
EARLY church tradition claimed that John was still living to prop up the idea the "this generation" was still alive - giving hope that Jesus' promise was still to be fulfilled. (John was supposedly way over 100 years old) Alas Jesus' promise went unfulfilled.
Also these needs to be considered, if these books were simply intended as apologetic fictions, then why the use of Matthew, Mark and Luke as authors.
You seem to forget there were hundreds of gospels. Each with slightly different takes on the life of the mythical dying god-man. The 'church fathers' HAD to make a stand on a few, or risk fracturing the church.
Matthew was a minor apostle who also was a tax collector, his job would have left him as persona non grata among ancient readers.
No one knows who wrote Matthew. It certainly wasn't someone alive during the supposed life of Jesus.
Also, if the NT is simply intended as apologetic fiction
You are confusing 'apologetic fiction' with Christian mythology
The didache is dated no later then 100ad
You are High-larious! Surely you realize there were Gnostic writings BEFORE the Gospels?! Do you not know of the Therapeutae of Alexandria? My God man! Where did you study? Do you not realize Mark is a Gnostic idea refashioned to a specific geography and time?
Why didn't the church write the rest of the life of Jesus,
Now you have revealed your ignorance. Are you not aware of the Infancy Gospels? Do you think there were only 4 gospels?!
[/b]why did it start with John the Baptist. [/B]
Mark started with John - yes. Mark knows nothing about the virgin birth in Bethleham. Mark starts a couple of years before the 'crucifiction'. It's simply the Gnostic myth re-created into reality.
Isn't it funny Paul doesn't know who John is? Paul doesn't really know anything about Jesus does he? Doesn't know about the virgin birth, Bethlaham, Jerusalem - all Paul knows is the crucified/resurrected god-man. Why? Because Paul was writing to Gnostics. It was with Mark that a geography and time were re-threaded through the story.
At the fall of Jerusalem, the Jews knew Yahweh had broken His promise. The only hope was to refashion the Gnostic myth into history to give hope to a beaten people. The funny thing about xians is - they believe the myth is history! (By the way, xians were ridiculed in the early 2nd century for just that belief)
You have a lot to learn.
Good luck in your debate with Yahweh. You'll need it.
