Dating the Gospels

[_Jersey Girl]

Hello All,

What are your thoughts on accepted dates for the Gospels? Wikipedia has this to offer:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible

Gospel of Mark: +70 AD (conservative dating may be as early as 50)
Gospel of Matthew: +80-90 AD (conservative dating in the 60s although as early as the 40s)
Gospel of Luke: +80–90 AD (conservative dating in the 60s)
Gospel of John: +95–110 AD (conservative dating in the late 80s to early 90s)

Do you agree with any of these dates and if so, how so? If you disagree, how do you arrive at your conclusion?

Jersey Girl

(Scholarly/High Brow...I suspect I'm tresspassing ;-)

[_GivingWarAChance]

These dates are, in my humble opinion, just SWAGs. If they can't come up with an original shred of a document so they can carbon-date it, or use some other technique to physically date it, then they are guessing up a storm. Considering that they cannot come up with a date for the crucifixion (due to a lack of contemporary documentation? probably), I'd say their dating attempts for the Gospels are lame.

Whoever they are.

[_Dr. Shades]

These dates are, in my humble opinion, just SWAGs.

What does "SWAG" mean? Some One's Asinine Guess?

If they can't come up with an original shred of a document so they can carbon-date it, or use some other technique to physically date it, then they are guessing up a storm. Considering that they cannot come up with a date for the crucifixion (due to a lack of contemporary documentation? probably), I'd say their dating attempts for the Gospels are lame.

I think their techniques are much more sound than that. It's my understanding that they date manuscripts by when people began referring to them in other correspondence, documentation, histories, etc.

[_GivingWarAChance]

SWAG = Scientific Wild-Assed Guess, as opposed to a WAG, which is just wild-assed. Ass in this case refers to the wild animal not the profane bodypart reference (this IS the Celestial Forum, after all).

It's a fair technique, I admit, in the sense that it is a better guess than otherwise. Mark's Gospel may have been complete and circulating within a year of the crucifixion, for example, and just nobody referred to it that early in an extant document, or a document that did refer to it is a copy of a copy of a copy and insufficient internal references make it impossible to date any earlier than the physical material upon which it is written. That's a WAG, by the way.

[_Jersey Girl]

SWAG = Scientific Wild-Assed Guess, as opposed to a WAG, which is just wild-assed. Ass in this case refers to the wild animal not the profane bodypart reference (this IS the Celestial Forum, after all).

It's a fair technique, I admit, in the sense that it is a better guess than otherwise. Mark's Gospel may have been complete and circulating within a year of the crucifixion, for example, and just nobody referred to it that early in an extant document, or a document that did refer to it is a copy of a copy of a copy and insufficient internal references make it impossible to date any earlier than the physical material upon which it is written. That's a WAG, by the way.

What about dating the Gospel's by content?

Jersey Girl

[_Dr. Shades]

What about dating the Gospel's by content?

Because each of the Gospels describe events that took place in the past. Since none of them specifically state the year in which they were written, we have no idea how far in the past the events took place that the gospels were writing about. (For example, was the writer of the Gospel of Mark referring to events 10 years previous or 50 years previous?)

[_Jersey Girl]

What about dating the Gospel's by content?

Because each of the Gospels describe events that took place in the past. Since none of them specifically state the year in which they were written, we have no idea how far in the past the events took place that the gospels were writing about. (For example, was the writer of the Gospel of Mark referring to events 10 years previous or 50 years previous?)

Well, Shades, I think that we can get somewhere if we view the Gospels as historical snapshots. For example, judging by the content of the following photo, what is the latest date you could reasonably assume that it was taken?

[_David Waltz]

In his lengthy treatment on this subject, Redating the New Testament (369 pages), the liberal Anglican scholar, A. T. Robinson, dates all the books of the New Testament prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

The Beachbum

[_Dr. Shades]

Does he consider the "Gospel of Q" to be the source for the Synoptic Gospels, and if so, is that what he says was written before the fall of Jerusalem?

Also, what is his justification for dating the Gospel According to St. John to before the fall of Jerusalem?

[_Jersey Girl]

Does he consider the "Gospel of Q" to be the source for the Synoptic Gospels, and if so, is that what he says was written before the fall of Jerusalem?

Also, what is his justification for dating the Gospel According to St. John to before the fall of Jerusalem?

Well...I don't know how someone else would answer that but I would say that I'd date the Gospel of John prior to the Temple destruction because, like the other gospels, it doesn't mention the Temple destruction but does mention landmarks that were present prior to the Temple destructions and that were destroyed during it. The Pools of Bethsaida, for example, that had 5 porticoes. The pools were figuratively at ground zero when the Temple destruction took place. People came to question that they even existed.

If I were a gospel writer (which I am not nor am I a mind reader) and especially if I were Luke, I would not have failed to omit a most signiicant event in my culture such as
the destruction of the Temple.

Jersey Girl