Author Topic: Dateing the gospels and not mentioning the temple  (Read 316 times)

Dateing the gospels and not mentioning the temple
« on: November 22, 2019, 12:15:19 AM »
I know that the general consensus with the dateing of the gospels is in the latter half of the first century but I have seen a lot of proponents of early written gospels mention that if the gospels had been written after 70ad, they would mention the destruction of the temple. Does anyone have any opinions or resources on this? My googling isn't really holding what I'm looking for

Edit- here's the sort of arguments I'm coming across

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
« Last Edit: November 22, 2019, 12:20:58 AM by Syrimoon »

Offline Baruch

Re: Dateing the gospels and not mentioning the temple
« Reply #1 on: November 22, 2019, 04:29:18 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I know that the general consensus with the dateing of the gospels is in the latter half of the first century but I have seen a lot of proponents of early written gospels mention that if the gospels had been written after 70ad, they would mention the destruction of the temple. Does anyone have any opinions or resources on this? My googling isn't really holding what I'm looking for

Edit- here's the sort of arguments I'm coming across

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

MikeCL put out a whole series of Dr Carrier videos on NT origins in a string in this section about a year ago.  It is very up to date and professional.

My current summary is that the regular Gospels are hagiographies, mostly romantic religious fictions.  And that the earliest third party evidence for some kind of Christianity are the letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan.  So this is shortly before 115 CE.  So early 2nd century.  It is an apologetic by Christian authors to try to push it back to 70 CE (because of the non-mention my Luke of the war of Rome with Judea).  For me, all prophesy is post-facto, so Mark's mention in Jesus' name of destruction of Jerusalem, and given that by common opinion Mark's gospel is the earliest one ... that all the gospels are post 70 CE not pre 70 CE.  Secular scholarship would also say that there were multiple Christianity then and now.

That it is a RCC myth that there was originally just one, that subsequently broke up under heretics.  Genuine Pauline letters are from 66 CE or earlier (Great Fire in Rome).  Tellingly Paul never met the Earthly Jesus, only the Heavenly Jesus.  The earlier full copies of NT writings are dated to 200 CE, plus/minus 50 years.  Before that, we only have hard to date fragments including two tiny pieces of the Matthew.  The first full Christian Bibles (in one volume, not scrolls) was ordered up by Emperor Constantine, so circa 330 CE.  Codex Siniaticus may be one of those.  All of it being in Greek, not Latin.  There were early partial Latin translations in the 3rd century CE, and the first full Latin (Vulgate) translation in the 4th century CE.
Zampa xiquihto.  Amo nimitzcuamachilia.
Say it again.  I don't understand you.

Re: Dateing the gospels and not mentioning the temple
« Reply #2 on: November 22, 2019, 01:44:26 PM »
I'm not sure that philosophical naturalism is the only reason the gospels are dated post-70s, but it is one good reason, I suppose. I'm willing to let the experts fight it out, though.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
“Let others pride themselves about how many pages they have written; I'd rather boast about the ones I've read.”
― Jorge Luis Borges

Offline Baruch

Re: Dateing the gospels and not mentioning the temple
« Reply #3 on: November 22, 2019, 03:37:10 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm not sure that philosophical naturalism is the only reason the gospels are dated post-70s, but it is one good reason, I suppose. I'm willing to let the experts fight it out, though.

Well, if we went on theology, then like the Quran, the Gospels have eternally existed in Heaven, and then were dictated to the individual evangelists.  But I don't think you would like that POV better.  That was the kind of scriptural writing theology from 600 BC until about 600 CE.  Went out of fashion after Muhammad broke the mold.
Zampa xiquihto.  Amo nimitzcuamachilia.
Say it again.  I don't understand you.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk