AD 60 is ~30 years after the death of Jesus....the latest Mark could have been written in AD 60.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
AD 60 is ~30 years after the death of Jesus....the latest Mark could have been written in AD 60.
Jesus' teachings came first. The Roman historian Tacitus records Him, and his records show that Jesus came first.
Jesus' teachings were not revolutionary. They came from God, and God was giving everyone the chance for salvation. God is not revolutionary. The Bible says He doesn't change.
If Mark were written in 62 c.e., and if Luke is taken from Mark, and if Acts is the second writing of the Lukan author, then Acts would, of necessity, have to be later than Mark. The lack of reporting Paul's death is not cogent here. Why is Paul's death theologically imortant to the message of Acts? Acts is concerned with the founding of the Church, not specifically with Paul's ministry, or the saintliness of his person.Well, I have to partially disagree with the last paragraph and I have read numerous books about the orgins of the Bible. Yes a great deal of scholarly reports sa that the first gospel was dated around AD but there is definitely evidence in the Bible which suggests they were written earlier. Acts was the 2nd book written by Luke - Paul is a central figure in Acts but it seems as though Acts ends abruptly when Paul is under house arrest. But Acts doesn't indicate anything about the last days of Paul or him dying. WHy? Probably because he was still alive when it was written. This mean it cannot be dated any later than AD 62. And since the gospel of Luke incorporates part of Mark - the latest Mark could have been written in AD 60.
As far as the gospel writes not accurately recording what Jesus said you have to look at people of that time. Obviously, these days, we wouldn't be able to remember specific quotes of somebody. However, you must understand this was an oral culture with much emphasis put on memorization - later Rabbis literally became famouns for having the entire Old testament memorized word for word. Additionally, the way in which Jesus spoke would have helped the ability to memorize as it was in poetic form - meters, balanced lines and parallelism. The "telephone game" is not in question with the gospels.
Okay it's not revolutionary... but you will settle that he is a Jewish religious reformer. In the bible it's Paul teaching that came first. Jesus teachings based on the gospels is a suspect of some kind of plagiarism. The four gospels' almost recorded their verses in the same order or almost verbatim. The gospels are later books than the epistles of Paul. Paul is teaching also about the gospel.
If Mark were written in 62 c.e., and if Luke is taken from Mark, and if Acts is the second writing of the Lukan author, then Acts would, of necessity, have to be later than Mark. The lack of reporting Paul's death is not cogent here. Why is Paul's death theologically imortant to the message of Acts? Acts is concerned with the founding of the Church, not specifically with Paul's ministry, or the saintliness of his person.
The "telephone game" isn't what I'm talking about. I'm well aware of the fact that oral societies had a highly-reliable capacity for verbatim. I'm talking about the agenda of the various writers, who may have "put words in Jesus' mouth" in order to accomplish their purpose in writing the gospel accounts.
The fact that the synoptic gospels are synoptic does not, in fact, "prove that the persons writing them were eyewitnesses." What it might prove is that the writers of Matthew and Luke took material from Mark as a source. We're pretty sure that Mark was written first. Mark refers to the destruction of the Temple in 70 c.e. Therefore, Mark would have to be written post-70 c.e. That would place Mark forty years following the crucifixion. Jesus was about 30 when he was crucified. We can assume that his disciples were about the same age. People back then just didn't live long enough to make an eyewitness account written 40 years after the fact feasible.Jesus, as a man, was a Jew who brought reforms. Yes, I'd agree with that. The question is where those reforms come from.
The fact that all the Gospels are synoptic (with the exception of John) proves that the persons writing them were either eyewitness or, in the case of Luke, one who obtained his account from someone who was first hand. They're several different accounts of the same occurrence, and do differ in styles of writing. It proves consistency; not plagiarism.
Paul's epistles may have been written earlier (I'm not sure actually), but the teachings of Jesus that are found in the Gospels were already widespread.
Sure they did! Luke states that he has set about to write an orderly account of these occurrences. Why would he do that (in a largely oral culture) if he didn't have posterity in mind as one impetus?Well, I highly doubt any of the gospel writers actually believed there stories would be passed down generation to generation like they have. What purpose do you think they had? Just because there was a theological agenda doesn't mean, at all, that they were putting words in His mouth. Look at the Holocaust for example, the most accurate yet objective pieces of writing came from the Jews. Of course they had a theological agenda but to presuppose that there accounts contain fiction is inaccurate.
Sure they did! Luke states that he has set about to write an orderly account of these occurrences. Why would he do that (in a largely oral culture) if he didn't have posterity in mind as one impetus?
Matthew writes to a Jewish audience. Luke writes to a Gentile audience. Each author has a certain theological issue about Jesus' life that he wants to propagate. Look in luke, chapter 10. Here Jesus makes a statement about hiding information from some people. That statement is quite simply out of character for Jesus. But it does explain a theological thread present in Luke, that is consistent with the audience to which Luke wrote.
There is also good evidence that they were written post-70 c.e. People just didn't live that long back then.there is good evidence which suggests the gospels were written earlier than AD 70. Regardless though, its important to understand that this would still be in the lifetime of various eyewitnesses and/or hostile eyewitnesses who could have served as corrective if false teachings about Jesus were going around.
Surely you must realize that the gospels were not as widely distributed and read as you appear to suppose. John is not synoptic. Thomas and Q are similar in places, different in others. It suggests that the community out of which Thomas and Q derive their shared material must have split very, very early, probably prior to 40 c.e. The differing material in Matthew and Luke must have been written post-Mark (which I still assert was written post-70 c.e., since it mentions the destruction of the Temple [which occurred in 70 c.e.]).Also, lets look at how the gospels differed/were similiar from one to the next: if they were completely identical people who claim that the authors conspired among themselves to coordinate their stories, yet if they differed too much then people who claim that this itself would invalidate them as truths.