Early dating of the Gospels, Biblical scholars Agree!
Athanasius
passage in the four Gospels
giving clear evidence of a date later than 50 A.D.
The dates of the Gospels
By George H. Duggan
When were the Gospels written? Or, to frame the question more
precisely, when had the Gospels arrived at the state in which we now
have them? The present text, we have reason to believe, was preceded
by earlier drafts. If that is so, we could not say that the Gospel of
St. Mark was written in 45, as we can say, for example, that Second
Corinthians was written in 55 or 56.
If we accept the Gospels as the inspired word of God, does it
really matter, one might ask, when they were written? In the days when
everyone accepted the traditional dating,1 one could perhaps have
dismissed the question as unimportant. But those days are long gone.
Ever since Reimarus (1694-1768) sought to convict the evangelists of
conscious fraud and innumerable contradictions, his rationalist
followers have put the writing of the Gospels late, in order to lessen
their value as sources of reliable information about the life of
Christ and his teaching.
D. F. Strauss (1808-1874), in his Life of Jesus, (published in
1835-6), anticipated Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976) in holding that the
Gospels, although they contain some historical facts, were mainly
mythology and were written late in the 2nd century. Similarly F. C.
Baur (1792-1860), an Hegelian rationalist, held that the Gospels were
written between 130 and 170. But Strauss, in the words of Giuseppe
Ricciotti, “honestly confessed that his theory would collapse if the
Gospels were composed during the first century.”2 If they were so
early, there would not be enough time for the myths to develop.
Moreover, it is plain that, the nearer a document is to the facts it
narrates, the more likely it is that it will be factually accurate,
just as an entry in a diary is more likely to be accurate than memoirs
written forty or fifty years afterwards. John A. T. Robinson was
therefore justified when he ended his book Redating the New Testament
with the words: “Dates remain disturbingly fundamental data.”3
The current dating of the four Gospels, accepted by the biblical
establishment, which includes scholars of every persuasion, is: Mark
65-70; Matthew and Luke in the 80s; John in the 90s. These dates are
repeated by the columnists who write in our Catholic newspapers and
the experts who draw up the curricula for religious education in our
Catholic schools.
For much of this late dating there is little real evidence. This
point was made by C. H. Dodd, arguably the greatest English-speaking
biblical scholar of the century. In a letter that serves as an
appendix to Robinson’s book Redating the New Testament, Dodd wrote: “I
should agree with you that much of the late dating is quite arbitrary,
even wanton, the offspring not of any argument that can be presented,
but rather of the critic’s prejudice that, if he appears to assent to
the traditional position of the early church, he will be thought no
better than a stick-in-the-mud.”5
Many years earlier the same point was made by C. C. Torrey,
professor of Semitic Languages at Yale from 1900 to 1932. He wrote: “I
challenged my NT colleagues to designate one passage from any one of
the four Gospels giving clear evidence of a date later than 50 A.D. .
. . The challenge was not met, nor will it be, for there is no such
passage.”6
In 1976, the eminent New Testament scholar, John A. T. Robinson,
“put a cat among the pigeons” with his book Redating the New
Testament, published by SCM Press. He maintained that there are no
real grounds for putting any of the NT books later than 70 A.D. His
main argument is that there is no clear reference in any of them to
the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple which occurred
on September 26th of that year. This cataclysmic event brought to an
end the sacrificial worship that was the center of the Jewish religion
and it should have merited a mention in the NT books if they were
written afterwards. In particular, one would have expected to find a
reference to the event in the Epistle to the Hebrews, for it would
have greatly strengthened the author’s argument that the Temple
worship was now obsolete.
Robinson dated the composition of Matthew from 40 to 60, using dots to
indicate the traditions behind the text, dashes to indicate a first
draft, and a continuous line to indicate writing and rewriting.
Similarly, he dated Mark from 45 to 60, Luke from 55 to 62, and John
from 40 to 65.
Robinson’s book was the first comprehensive treatment of the
dating of the NT books since Harnack’s Chronologie des altchristlichen
Litteratur, published in 1897. It is a genuine work of scholarship by
a man thoroughly versed in the NT text and the literature bearing on
it. But it was not welcomed by the biblical establishment, and it was
not refuted, but ignored. “German New Testament scholars,” Carsten
Thiede has written, “all but ignored Redating the New Testament, and
not until 1986, ten years later, did Robinson’s work appear in
Germany, when a Catholic and an Evangelical publishing house joined
forces to have it translated and put into print.”7
In 1987, the Franciscan Herald Press published The Birth of the
Synoptics by Jean Carmignac, a scholar who for some years was a member
of the team working on the Dead Sea Scrolls. He tells us he would have
preferred “Twenty Years of Work on the Formation of the Synoptic
Gospels” as a title for the book, but the publishers ruled this out as
too long.
Carmignac is sure that Matthew and Mark were originally written in
Hebrew. This would not have been the classical Hebrew of the Old
Testament, nor that of the Mishnah (c. 200 A.D.) but an intermediate
form of the language, such as the Qumran sectaries were using in the
1st century A.D.
Papias, the Bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor, who died about 130
A.D., tells us that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and Carmignac
has made a good case for holding that the same is true of Mark. He
found that this compelled him to put the composition of these Gospels
much earlier than the dates proposed by the biblical establishment. He
writes: “I increasingly came to realize the consequences of my work .
. . . The latest dates that can be admitted for Mark (and the
Collection of Discourses) is 50, and around 55 for the Completed Mark;
around 55-60 for Matthew; between 58 and 60 for Luke. But the earliest
dates are clearly more probable: Mark around 42; Completed Mark around
45; (Hebrew) Matthew around 50; (Greek) Luke a little after 50.”8
On page 87 he sets out the provisional results (some certain, some
probable, others possible) of his twenty years’ research and remarks
that his conclusions almost square with those of J. W. Wenham.9
In 1992, Hodder and Stoughton published Redating Matthew, Mark and
Luke by John Wenham, the author of a well-known grammar of New
Testament Greek. Born in 1913, he is an Anglican scholar who has spent
his life in academic and pastoral work. He tells us that his attention
was drawn to the Synoptic Problem in 1937, when he read Dom John
Chapman’s book Matthew, Mark and Luke. He has been grappling with the
problem ever since and in this book he offers his solution of the
problem; but his main concern is the dates of the Synoptics.
Wenham’s book received high praise from Michael Green, the editor
of the series I Believe, which includes works by such well-known
scholars as I. Howard Marsall and the late George Eldon Ladd. The
book, Green writes, “is full of careful research, respect for
evidence, brilliant inspiration and fearless judgement. It is a book
no New Testament scholar will be able to neglect.”
Green may be too optimistic. Wenham will probably get the same
treatment as Robinson: not a detailed refutation, but dismissed as not
worthy of serious consideration.
Wenham puts the first draft of Matthew before 42. For twelve years
(30-42) the Apostles had remained in Jerusalem, constituting, in words
of the Swedish scholar B. Gerhardsson, a kind of Christian Sanhedrin,
hoping to win over the Jewish people to faith in Christ. Matthew’s
Gospel, written in Hebrew, would have had an apologetic purpose,
endeavoring to convince the Jews, by citing various Old Testament
texts, that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of David and the
long-awaited Messiah.
The persecution of the Church in 42 by Herod Agrippa I, in which
the Apostle James suffered martyrdom, put an end to those hopes.
Peter, miraculously freed from prison, went, we are told “to another
place” (Acts 12:17). There are grounds for thinking that this “other
place” was Rome, where there was a big Jewish community and where he
would be out of the reach of Herod Agrippa. There, using Matthew’s
text, and amplifying it with personal reminiscences, he preached the
gospel. When Agrippa died in 44, Peter was able to return to
Palestine. After his departure from Rome, Mark produced the first
draft of his Gospel, based on Peter’s preaching.
Luke was in Philippi from 49 to 55, and it was during this time
that he produced the first draft of his Gospel, beginning with our
present chapter 3, which records the preaching of John the Baptist.10
It was to this Gospel, Origen explained, that St. Paul was referring
when, writing to the Corinthians in 56, he described Luke as “the
brother whose fame in the gospel has gone through all the churches” (2
Cor. 8:18).
We know that Luke was in Palestine when Paul was in custody in
Caesarea (58-59). He would have been able to move round Galilee,
interviewing people who had known the Holy Family, and probably making
the acquaintance of a draft in the Hebrew of the Infancy Narrative,
and so gathering material for the first two chapters of the present
Gospel. In the finished text he introduced this and the rest of the
Gospel with the prologue in which he assures Theophilus that he
intends to write history.
There are no grounds for putting Luke’s Gospel in the early 80s as
R. F. Karris does,11 or, with Joseph Fitzmyer, placing it as “not
earlier than 80-85.”12
The date of Luke’s Gospel is closely connected with that of Acts,
its companion volume, for if Acts is early, then Luke will be earlier
still. In 1896, Harnack put Acts between 79 and 93, but by 1911 he had
come to the conclusion that “it is the highest degree probable” that
Acts is to be dated before 62. If Luke does not mention the outcome of
the trial of Paul, it is, Harnack argued, because he did not know, for
when Luke wrote, the trial had not yet taken place.
C. J. Hemer, in his magisterial work, The Book of Acts in the
Setting of Hellenistic History, which was published posthumously in
1989, gives fifteen general indications, of varying weight but
cumulative in their force, which point to a date before 70. Indeed,
many of these point to a date before 65, the year in which the Neroian
persecution of the Church began.13
In 1996, Weidenfeld and Nicholson published The Jesus Papyrus by
Carsten Peter Thiede and Matthew d’Ancona. Thiede is Director of the
Institute for Basic Epistemological Research in Paderborn, Germany,
and a member of the International Papyrological Association. Matthew
d’Ancona is a journalist and Deputy Editor of the Daily Telegraph, a
London newspaper.
The book is about several papyrus fragments, and in particular
three found in Luxor, Egypt, which contain passages from the Gospel of
St. Matthew, and one found in Qumran, which contains twenty letters
from the Gospel of St. Mark.
The three Luxor fragments—the Jesus papyrus—came into the
possession of the Reverend Charles Huleatt, the Anglican chaplain in
that city, who sent them in 1901 to Magdalen College, Oxford, where he
had graduated in 1888. They did not attract scholarly attention until
1953, when Colin H. Roberts examined them. He dated them as belonging
to the late 2nd century. Then in 1994, they came to the notice of C.
P. Thiede, who suspected that they might be much older than Roberts
thought. Examining them with a confocal laser scanning microscope, and
comparing them with the script in a document dated July 24, 66, he
came to the conclusion that the fragments should be dated as belonging
to the middle of the first century.
The Qumran fragment is small—3.3 cm x 2.3 cm—an area that is
slightly larger than a postage stamp. It contains twenty letters, on
five lines, ten of the letters being damaged. It is fragment no. 5
from Cave 7 and it is designated 7Q5. A similar fragment from the same
Cave—7Q2—has one more letter—twenty-one as against twenty, on five
lines. The identification of this fragment as Baruch (or the Letter of
Jeremiah) 6:43-44 has never been disputed.
In 1972 Fr. José O’Callaghan, S.J., a Spanish papyrologist,
declared that the words on 7Q5 were from the Gospel of St. Mark:
6:52-53. This identification was widely questioned, but many
papyrologists rallied to his support, and there are good reasons for
thinking that O’Callaghan was right. Thiede writes: “In 1994, the last
word on this particular identification seemed to have been uttered by
one of the great papyrologists of our time, Orsolina Montevecchi,
Honorary President of the International Papyrological Association. She
summarized the results in a single unequivocal sentence: ‘I do not
think there can be any doubt about the identification of 7Q5.’”14 This
implies that St. Marks’ Gospel was in being some time before the
monastery at Qumran was destroyed by the Romans in 68.
Those who object that texts of the Gospels could not have reached
such out of the way places as Luxor or Qumran as early as the 60s of
the first century do not realize how efficient the means of
communication were in the Empire at that time. Luxor was even then a
famous tourist attraction, and, with favorable winds a letter from
Rome could reach Alexandria in three days—at least as quickly as an
airmail letter in 1996. Nor was Qumran far from Jerusalem, and we know
that the monks took a lively interest in the religious and
intellectual movements of the time.
New Testament scholars dealing with the Synoptic Gospels will
obviously have to take more notice of the findings of the
papyrologists than they have so far been prepared to do, however
painful it may be to discard received opinions.
When was St. John’s Gospel written?
That John, the son of Zebedee, and one of the Apostles, wrote the
Gospel that bears his name, was established long ago, on the basis of
external and internal evidence, by B. F. Westcott and M. J. Lagrange,
O.P., and their view, though not universally accepted, has not really
been shaken.
St. Irenaeus, writing in 180, tells us that John lived until the
reign of the Emperor Trajan, which began in 98. From this some have
inferred that John wrote his Gospel in the 90s. But this inference is
obviously fallacious. The majority of modern scholars do indeed date
the Gospel in the 90s, but a growing number put it earlier, and
Robinson mentions seventeen, including P. Gardner-Smith, R. M. Grant
and Leon Morris, who favor a date before 70. To them we could add
Klaus Berger, of Heidelberg, who puts it in 66. Robinson decisively
refutes the arguments brought forward by Raymond Brown and others to
establish a later date, viz. the manner of referring to “the Jews,”
and the reference to excommunication in chapter 9.15 He adds: “There
is nothing in the Gospel that suggests or presupposes that the Temple
is already destroyed or that Jerusalem is in ruins—signs of which
calamity are inescapably present in any Jewish or Christian literature
that can with any certainty be dated to the period 70-100.”16
Robinson also points out that John, when describing the cure of
the paralytic at the pool of Bethesda, tells us that this pool “is
surrounded by five porticos, or covered colonnades” (5:2). Since these
porticos were destroyed in 70, John’s use of the present
tense—“is”—seems to imply that the porticos were still in being when
he wrote. “Too much weight,” he admits, “must not be put on
this—though it is the only present tense in the context; and elsewhere
(4:6; 11:18; 18:1; 19:41), John assimilates his topographical
descriptions to the tense of the narrative.”17
This article will have served its purpose if it has encouraged the
reader to consider seriously the evidence for an early date for the
Gospels, refusing to be overawed by such statements as that “the
majority of modern biblical scholars hold” or that “there is now a
consensus among modern biblical scholars” that the Gospels are to be
dated from 65 to 90 A.D.
The account I have given of the writing of the Synoptic Gospels is
categorical in style, but it is presented only as a likely scenario.
However, it would seem to be more likely than one based on the
assumption that among the Jews, a literate people, it was thirty years
or more before anyone wrote a connected account of the life and
teaching of Jesus of Nazareth.
“I do not wish,” C. S. Lewis once said to a group of divinity
students, “to reduce the skeptical element in your minds. I am only
suggesting that it need not be reserved exclusively for the New
Testament and the Creeds. Try doubting something else.”18 This
something else, I suggest could include the widely accepted view that
the Gospels were written late.
It will be easier to do this if the reader is acquainted with the
judgment of the eminent jurist, Sir Norman Anderson, who describes
himself as “an academic from another discipline who has browsed widely
in the writings of contemporary theologians and biblical scholars.” At
times, he is, he tells us, “astonished by the way in which they handle
their evidence, by the presuppositions and a priori convictions with
which some of them clearly (and even, on occasion, on their own
admission) approach the documents concerned, and by the positively
staggering assurance with which they make categorical pronouncements
on points which are, on any showing, open to question, and on which
equally competent colleagues take a diametrically opposite view.”19
1 The traditional dating is given in the Douay-Rheims-Challoner
version in its introductions to the Gospels: Matthew about 36; Mark
about 40; Luke about 54; John about 93.
2 Ricciotti, The Life of Christ (E.T. Alba I. Zizzamia), Bruce,
Milwaukee, 1944, p. 186.
3 Redating the New Testament, SCM Press, London, 1976, p. 358.
4 Thus in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Geoffrey Chapman,
London, 1989, D. J. Harrington puts Mark before 70; B. T. Viviani,
O.P., puts Matthew between 80 and 90; R. J. Karris, O.F.M., puts Luke
80-85; Pheme Perkins puts John in the 90s.
5 Redating the New Testament, p. 360.
6 Quoted in J. Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Hodder and
Stoughton, London, p. 299 note 2.
7 C. P. Thiede and M. d’Ancona, The Jesus Papyrus, Weidenfeld and
Nicholson, London, 1996, p. 45.
8 J. Carmignac, The Birth of the Synoptics, (E. T. Michael J. Wrenn)
Franciscan Herald Press, Chicago, 1987, pp. 6, 61.
9 Ibid., p. 99 note 29.
10 Robinson suggests that this may be the case, op. cit. p. 282 note
142.
11 R. J. Karris, in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, p. 670.
12 Richard Dillon and Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., in The Jerome Biblical
Commentary, Prentice-Hall International, London, 1968, Vol. 2, p. 165.
13 J. Wenham, op. cit., pp. 225-226.
14 C. P. Thiede and M. d’Ancona, op. cit., p. 56.
15 Robinson, op. cit., pp. 272-285.
16 Ibid., p. 275.
17 Ibid., p. 278.
18 “Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism” in Christian Reflections,
Geoffrey Bles, London, 1967, p. 164.
19A Lawyer Among Theologians, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1973, p.
15.
Reverend George H. Duggan, S.M., is a New Zealander. After earning his
S.T.D. at the Angelicum in Rome, he taught philosophy for fifteen
years at the Marist seminary, Greenmeadows, and then was rector in
turn of a university hall of residence and the Marist tertianship. He
is now living in retirement at St. Patrick’s College, Silverstream. He
is the author of Evolution and Philosophy (1949), Hans Kung and
Reunion (1964), Teilhardism and the Faith (1968), and Beyond
Reasonable Doubt (1987). His last article in HPR appeared in October
1992.
Athanasius,servant.
The Chapel of the Four Living Creatures Coptic Orthodox Australian Mission.
Ningi, Bribie Island, Caboolture,South East Queensland,Australia, 4511.Telephone: 0407 969827
http://www.ourchurch.com/member/a/Aus_Orthodox/
dcn_ath...@REMOVEyahoo.com.au (REMOVE is spam trap-please remove it from the email address).
"If the world is against Athanasius then Athanasius is against the world." St Athanasius.
Athanasius
<dcn_ath...@REMOVEyahoo.com.au> wrote:
>Scripture scholars were challenged to find one
>passage in the four Gospels
>giving clear evidence of a date later than 50 A.D.
>
>The dates of the Gospels
And this -cutting edge- CURRENT scholarship. Note: I saw a programme
on this just the other day on foxtel, titled the Titulus, absolutely
fascinating how thiede -proved- beyond reasonable doubt that the
portion of the sign above Christ's head is located and known and
-genuine- NOT a medievil fake as some earlier scholarship had written
it off as.
Anyway here is Thiede on the early dating of St mark and St matthew
into the 60's AD using cutting edge scince.
The Reverend Professor Carsten Thiede
(Filed: 24/12/2004)
The Reverend Professor Carsten Thiede, who died on December 14 aged
52, was one of the foremost New Testament scholars of his era and a
true pioneer in his field.
As conscientious in his methods as he was controversial in his claims,
Thiede issued a magnificent challenge to the liberal orthodoxy which
had prevailed in his field for generations. He will be remembered for
his dramatic re-dating of the Gospels of St Matthew and St Mark, his
insistence that certain Christian relics merited serious scientific
analysis, and - most recently - a dramatic archaeological find in the
Holy Land.
Thiede's ambition was to lay the intellectual foundations of what he
called a "new paradigm" in Gospel scholarship, as simple in its
arguments as it was provocative to the academic establishment. He was
fond of quoting the distinguished classical scholar of late antiquity,
George Kennedy: "Ancient writers sometimes meant what they said, and
occasionally even knew what they were talking about."
Thiede felt that the Gospel authors deserved to be read in a similar
spirit. In this context, his most influential book was The Jesus
Papyrus (1996), co-written with Matthew d'Ancona, which examined the
evidence of the earliest surviving New Testament papyri and argued
that these fragments - of St Mark and St Matthew - could be dated,
using revolutionary forensic technology as well as traditional
techniques, to the early Sixties AD, and perhaps earlier. It followed
that the so-called "tunnel" separating Jesus's life from the work of
the Gospel writers was short - possibly years, rather than
generations. This radical analysis meant that the recollection of the
Evangelists could no longer be assumed to be faulty or folkloric, and
that the first readers of the Gospels could, quite conceivably, have
heard the sermons recorded in them.
To advance such claims was to threaten a long-established orthodoxy:
that the Gospels are late creations, that two or three generations
stood between them and the events they portrayed, that the texts were,
in fact, the collective work of Second Century Christian communities,
rather than the accounts of individual authors, and that they have
almost no claim to historical authenticity.
The Jesus Papyrus, which was a bestseller around the world, caused a
firestorm of debate; it was reported in a Time cover story and
inspired a lengthy television documentary. Perhaps uniquely, a book
responding to Thiede's argument appeared before his own was actually
published.
Four years later, he re-entered the scholarly lists with The Quest for
The True Cross, an exploration of the holy relics and sites of early
Christianity, which focused on the Titulus, or crucifixion headboard,
at the church of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, Rome. This
largely-forgotten artefact, allegedly unearthed in the fourth century
by Constantine's mother, Helena, had long been dismissed as a quaint
forgery. Thiede showed that the more the Titulus was analysed, the
less reason there was to suppose it was the work of a Constantinian or
medieval fraudster. This book - which also led to a Channel 4
documentary - sought to demonstrate the critical importance in early
Christianity of sacred sites.
Thiede's final major project was his most secret, and probably his
most important: the location of Emmaus, the ancient village mentioned
in Luke Chapter 24, where the resurrected Christ dines with two of His
followers and reveals His true identity ("their eyes were opened and
they recognised Him"). The site of the village has foxed biblical
detectives for centuries, and the trail had run cold until Thiede's
remarkable excavations in the Holy Land with his students from the
Independent Academy of Theology in Basle, where he held a chair in
papyrology. The full fruits of this archaeological work will be
published next year in a book he completed shortly before his death.
Carsten Peter Thiede was born in West Berlin on August 8 1952, and
studied Comparative Literature at university in the city of his birth.
In 1976 he went as a German National Scholarship Foundation Research
Fellow to Queen's College, Oxford, and forged a life-long connection
with the university.
In 1978 he became a Senior Lecturer in Comparative Literature at
Geneva, beating 200 other candidates, and was inspired in his new post
by his fellow "comparativist", George Steiner. He was drawn to the
subject of early Christianity as a linguist and an expert in medieval
Latin philology, and the study of the origins of the faith became his
life's work.
Having entered the field by this route, rather than as an academic
theologian, he was dismayed by what he found - in particular, what he
regarded as the closed-minded refusal by historians of early
Christianity to import the methods of other disciplines, especially
the forensic techniques of the laboratory. He was as much at home with
an electronic microscope analysing a letter from a manuscript found at
Masada as he was trawling the most ancient archives in the world (he
even invented a new kind of laser microscope in collaboration with
George Masuch, professor of biology at Paderborn, which enabled him to
examine manuscript writing in three dimensions).
Although much of his academic life was consumed by work on papyri,
Thiede did not describe himself as a "papyrologist", regarding this as
only one of the many intellectual hats he wore.
He was director of the Institute for Basic Epistemological Research,
in his home town of Paderborn, Germany, and then professor at Ben
Gurion University in Beer Sheba, southern Israel, a chair he held in
addition to his professorship at Basle. For the last seven years of
his life, he oversaw the analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls for the
Israeli Antiquities Authority.
He seemed perpetually itinerant, firing off e-mails to friends and
colleagues from all over the world, and worked astonishingly long
hours. He wrote many articles for The Church of England Newspaper, and
was invariably at work on several books, including texts on Europe and
other themes that he was commissioned to write by the German
Government. Weeks before he died, yet another book, The Cosmopolitan
World of Jesus, was published by SPCK.
In his youth, he had been an outstanding volleyball player, playing in
the national league, and gave it up only when it was clear that he
could not combine the demands of athletic training with his scholarly
research.
One television crew was so impressed by Thiede's industry and
resilience that they nick-named him "Cast-Iron". That was typical of
the affection he inspired. Even those who took issue with his
scholarly claims often became his friends.
A walk through an ancient city in his company was a rare and
unforgettable experience, so great was the range of his knowledge: he
was happy to play Virgil to another's Dante.
Instantly recognisable with his shock of silver hair and ready smile,
he would know where to find a church in Jerusalem, where Assyrian - a
close relative of ancient Aramaic - is still spoken, and how to get a
table at the best Jewish restaurant in Rome. His genius for
companionship has left his many friends shocked at his sudden death
from a heart attack.
Faith was at the heart of Thiede's life - ever the Anglophile, he was
a member of the Church of England - and none who knew him well was
surprised when he was ordained priest by the Rt Rev John Kirkham,
Bishop to the Armed Forces, in 2000. His pastoral work with British
troops at Paderborn and the 14,000-strong British community in the
town long preceded his ordination, and he and his family devoted
countless hours to this task, especially when soldiers from the
garrison were in the line of fire in the Balkans.
Thiede's personal beliefs were profoundly practical in their
application. Even so, he was adamant that faith and scholarship were
separate, and he rejected attempts by Christian fundamentalists to
recruit him to their cause. When he was promoting the American version
of one of his books, he was amused during an interview with a
Christian cable channel to find that the reporter had brought cue
cards with the answers he wanted read out.
The most powerful emblem of his Anglophilia - and the most important
thing in his life - was his marriage to Franziska Campbell in 1982. He
is survived by her, a daughter and a younger twin son and daughter.
Athanasius
<dcn_ath...@REMOVEyahoo.com.au> wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:25:32 +1000, Athanasius
><dcn_ath...@REMOVEyahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Scripture scholars were challenged to find one
>>passage in the four Gospels
>>giving clear evidence of a date later than 50 A.D.
>>
>>The dates of the Gospels
Needless to say that the early dating and that the apostles that they
are named after is the ancient and continued tradition of the Orthodox
Churches. IOW Tradition says the apostles wrote the Gospels. Thiis
also is valuable evidence.
Peace and grace
Bogus Fracture
> Needless to say that the early dating and that the apostles that they
> are named after is the ancient and continued tradition of the
Orthodox
> Churches. IOW Tradition says the apostles wrote the Gospels. Thiis
> also is valuable evidence.
There is no evidence the Apostles existed.
BF
Athanasius
wrote:
>There is no evidence the Apostles existed.
>
>BF
There is no evidence you exist.
Bogus Fracture
> On 9 Feb 2005 19:23:15 -0800, "Bogus Fracture"
<bogusf...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >There is no evidence the Apostles existed.
> >
> >BF
>
> There is no evidence you exist.
Indeed, there is not. So why are you talking to me?
BF
Athanasius
<dcn_ath...@REMOVEyahoo.com.au> wrote:
>Scripture scholars were challenged to find one
>passage in the four Gospels
>giving clear evidence of a date later than 50 A.D.
>
>The dates of the Gospels
Some interesting paragraphs in this as well....
The dates of the Gospels
It is often asked; when were the Gospels written? To this question we
have to seek for both intrinsic evidence that we find in the Gospels
themselves and extrinsic evidence which has been greatly developed
with modern research.
In 1976, the eminent New Testament scholar, John A. T. Robinson, with
his book: Redating the New Testament ( published by SCM Press )
maintained that there are no real grounds for putting any of the NT
books later than 70 A.D. His main argument is that there is no clear
reference in any of them to the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction
of the Temple which occurred on September 26th of that year. This
cataclysmic event brought to an end the sacrificial worship that was
the center of the Jewish religion and it should have merited a mention
in the NT books if they were written afterwards. In particular, one
would have expected to find a reference to the event in the Epistle to
the Hebrews, for it would have greatly strengthened the author’s
argument that the Temple worship was now obsolete.Robinson dated the
composition of Matthew from 40 to 60, using dots to indicate the
traditions behind the text, dashes to indicate a first draft, and a
continuous line to indicate writing and rewriting. Similarly, he dated
Mark from 45 to 60, Luke from 55 to 62, and John from 40 to 65.
Robinson decisively refutes the arguments brought forward to establish
a later date, viz. the manner of referring to “the Jews,” and the
reference to excommunication in chapter 9.15 He adds: “There is
nothing in the Gospel that suggests or presupposes that the Temple is
already destroyed or that Jerusalem is in ruins—signs of which
calamity are inescapably present in any Jewish or Christian literature
that can with any certainty be dated to the period 70-100.” (Ibid., p.
275)
Robinson also points out that John, when describing the cure of the
paralytic at the pool of Bethesda, tells us that this pool “is
surrounded by five porticos, or covered colonnades” (5:2). Since these
porticos were destroyed in 70, John’s use of the present
tense—“is”—seems to imply that the porticos were still in being when
he wrote. “Too much weight,” he admits, “must not be put on
this—though it is the only present tense in the context; and elsewhere
(4:6; 11:18; 18:1; 19:41), John assimilates his topographical
descriptions to the tense of the narrative.” (Ibid., p. 278).
St. Irenaeus, writing in 180, tells us that John lived until the reign
of the Emperor Trajan, which began in 98. From this some have inferred
that John wrote his Gospel in the 90s. But this inference is obviously
fallacious. The majority of modern scholars do indeed date the Gospel
in the 90s, but a growing number put it earlier, and Robinson mentions
seventeen, including P. Gardner-Smith, R. M. Grant and Leon Morris,
who favor a date before 70 AD. To them we could add Klaus Berger, of
Heidelberg, who puts it in 66.
Robinson observes that in the Acts of there is not "any hint of the
death of James the "Lord's brother" (meaning relation) in 62 A.D
(Ibid., p. 89). It had not yet, therefore, taken place when Luke
commpleted his work, otherwise he would have reported this
assassination which took place at the hands of the Sanhedrin against
the authority of Rome. Robinson emphasises that no incident have
served Luke's apologetic purpose better, that it was the Jews and not
the Romans who were the real enemies of the Gospel.
Saint Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome during Peter's lifetime and based
on Peter’s preaching, but in his absence and at the request of his
hearers who were "very many" as reported by Eusebius, who adds: "When
the matter came to Peter's knowledge he neither strongly forbade it
nor urged it forward". We are on the solid ground here of historical
testimony, the value of which Robinson weighs carefully: Eusebius
(256-340), corroborated by Papias, the Bishop of Hierapolis in Asia
Minor, who died about 130 A.D., tells us that Matthew wrote his Gospel
in Hebrew, and Aramaic has made a good case for holding that the same
is true of Mark. He found that this compelled him to put the
composition of these Gospels much earlier than the dates proposed by
the biblical establishment. He writes: “I increasingly came to realize
the consequences of my work . . . . The latest dates that can be
admitted for Mark (and the Collection of Discourses) is 50, and around
55 for the Completed Mark; around 55-60 for Matthew; between 58 and 60
for Luke. But the earliest dates are clearly more probable: Mark
around 42; Completed Mark around 45; (Hebrew) Matthew around 50;
(Greek) Luke a little after 50.” (J. Carmignac, The Birth of the
Synoptics, (E. T. Michael J. Wrenn) Franciscan Herald Press,
Chicago,).
Further Robinson adds that "it is Clement (of Alexandria) who links it
(St. Marks Gospel) to a particular preaching mission in Rome, and to
the production and distribution of a book to which Peter's reaction is
recorded - clearly implying that Peter was still alive (though absent)
at the time of its writting" (Ibid p. 108). St. Irenaeus comments that
"After their departure [of Peter and Paul from earth], Mark, the
disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing
what had been preached by Peter." - Against Heresies 3.1.1
The discovery of a fragment of St. Mark's Gospel in cave 7 of Qumran
in Isreal has brought striking confirmation of the tradition.
The three Luxor fragments—the Jesus papyrus—came into the possession
of the Reverend Charles Huleatt, the Anglican chaplain in that city,
who sent them in 1901 to Magdalen College, Oxford, where he had
graduated in 1888. They did not attract scholarly attention until in
1994, they came to the notice of C. P. Thiede, who suspected that they
might be much older than Roberts thought. Examining them with a
confocal laser scanning microscope, and comparing them with the script
in a document dated July 24, 66, he came to the conclusion that the
fragments should be dated as belonging to the middle of the first
century.
The Qumran fragment is small—3.3 cm x 2.3 cm—an area that is slightly
larger than a postage stamp. It contains twenty letters, on five
lines, ten of the letters being damaged. It is fragment no. 5 from
Cave 7 and it is designated 7Q5. A similar fragment from the same
Cave—7Q2—has one more letter—twenty-one as against twenty, on five
lines. The identification of this fragment as Baruch (or the Letter of
Jeremiah) 6:43-44 has never been disputed. In 1972 the Spanish
papyrologist José O’Callaghan published a controversial article,
“¿Papiros neotestamentarios en la cueva 7 de Qumrân?” in which he
argued that the fifth manuscript from the seventh cave of Qumran was a
fragment from the Gospel of Mark (6:52-53). . This identification was
widely questioned, but many papyrologists rallied to his support, and
there are good reasons for thinking that O’Callaghan was right. Thiede
writes: “In 1994, the last word on this particular identification
seemed to have been uttered by one of the great papyrologists of our
time, Orsolina Montevecchi, Honorary President of the International
Papyrological Association. She summarized the results in a single
unequivocal sentence: ‘I do not think there can be any doubt about the
identification of 7Q5.’”(C. P. Thiede and M. d’Ancona, op. cit., p.
56).This implies that St. Marks’ Gospel was in being some time before
the monastery at Qumran was destroyed by the Romans in 68. Further in
1972, In 1982 Carsten Peter Thiede, a German scholar, began to publish
works in defense of the O’Callaghan hypothesis.
Those who object that texts of the Gospels could not have reached such
out of the way places as Luxor or Qumran as early as the 60s of the
first century do not realize how efficient the means of communication
were in the Empire at that time. Luxor was even then a famous tourist
attraction, and, with favorable winds a letter from Rome could reach
Alexandria in three days. Nor was Qumran far from Jerusalem, and we
know that the monks took a lively interest in the religious and
intellectual movements of the time.
St. Matthews Gospel is the first Gospel. It goes back back to the
first decade of the Church's expansion. Its influence can be discerned
in the first epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians in the course
of his second voyage (50-52 AD). Robinson is inclined to place it
between 40 and 60 AD as there are hardly any signs in it of
persecution or of a "falling away".
Luke was in Philippi from 49 to 55, and it was during this time that
he produced the first draft of his Gospel, beginning with our present
chapter 3, which records the preaching of John the Baptist. It was to
this Gospel, Origen explained, that St. Paul was referring when,
writing to the Corinthians in 56, he described Luke as “the brother
whose fame in the gospel has gone through all the churches” (2 Cor.
8:18). The date of Luke’s Gospel is closely connected with that of
Acts, its companion volume, for if Acts is early, then Luke will be
earlier still.
We know that Luke was in Palestine when Paul was in custody in
Caesarea (58-59 AD). He would have been able to move round Galilee,
interviewing people who had known the Holy Family, and probably making
the acquaintance of a draft in the Hebrew of the Infancy Narrative,
and so gathering material for the first two chapters of the present
Gospel. In the finished text he introduced this and the rest of the
Gospel with the prologue in which he assures Theophilus that he
intends to write history.
C. J. Hemer, in his magisterial work, The Book of Acts in the Setting
of Hellenistic History, which was published posthumously in 1989,
gives fifteen general indications, of varying weight but cumulative in
their force, which point to a date before 70. Indeed, many of these
point to a date before 65, the year in which the Neroian persecution
of the Church began (J. Wenham, op. cit., pp. 225-226).
Athanasius
wrote:
>Indeed, there is not. So why are you talking to me?
>
>BF
Your writing is not from you, it is from someone named like you who
lived two generations from now. :)
The use of the capitalising the BF without use of the fullstops B.F.
clearly date your writing to 2100 and thus it is impossible to have
been written in 2005. :)
Likewise no modern historian makes reference to you even existing so
therefor you don't.
In fact, you never actually lives, you are a myth that someone made up
to support their theory of life the universe and everything. :)
How silly for anyone to actually believe you were a person.
Athanasius
<dcn_ath...@REMOVEyahoo.com.au> wrote:
>Scripture scholars were challenged to find one
>passage in the four Gospels
>giving clear evidence of a date later than 50 A.D.
>
>The dates of the Gospels
How am I doing so far Mark? :)
peace and grace
Athanasius
<dcn_ath...@REMOVEyahoo.com.au> wrote:
>Scripture scholars were challenged to find one
>passage in the four Gospels
>giving clear evidence of a date later than 50 A.D.
>
>The dates of the Gospels
I am amazed at the recent events. wow, have a read of this.....
Gospels
Gospel Debate
by Antonio Gaspari
Pandemonium in Venice! On the 900th anniversary of the dedication of
St. Mark's
Basilica, during a scholarly symposium on the Gospel of Mark,
exegetes, papyrologists,
New Testament scholars and assorted interested Catholics nearly came
to blows over
the "historicity" of the Gospels, blasting one another for (on the one
hand) alleged
"biblical fundamentalism" and "anti-conciliar attitudes" and (on the
other) "ultra-liberal
interpretations" and "New Age attitudes."
What's it all about? The story begins with a fragment of papyrus (the
reed-based paper
of the ancient world) about the size of a postage stamp. In the world
of biblical studies,
this fragment has become the center of furious controversy because it
threatens to make
and un-make decades of scholarly biblical research.
The St. Mark Conference, convened in Venice on May 30, brought
together leading
biblical scholars from around the world. At the center of attention:
Spanish Jesuit
Father Jose O' Callaghan , who claims to have identified the
controversial fragment as
a piece of the Gospel of Mark, and German papyrologist Carsten Peter
Thiede , who
thinks O'Callaghan is right.
The following is a reconstruction of the phenomenon and debate.
The Discovery
In 1972, Father O'Callaghan, then a respected young lecturer at the
Pontifical Bible
Institute - the Rector at the time was the present cardinal archbishop
of Milan, Carlo
Maria Martini - made a startling claim. He argued in an article in
the Institute's
research journal, <Biblica, >that a miniscule fragment of text found
in 1947 in one of the
Qumran caves near the Dead Sea in the Holy Land - the 5th fragment
taken from Cave
7 (thus its shorthand identification as "Fragment 7Q5") - contained a
text from the
Gospel of St. Mark, and that the handwriting dated from between 50
B.C. and 50 A.D.
The identification was a <tour de force, >since the fragment contains
a mere 11 letters
of the Greek alphabet and not a single complete word.
But O'Callaghan, who is famous for having made a number of clever
identifications of
tiny Greek fragments during his career (he told <Inside the Vatican
>he believes he has
"a gift" for identifying such fragments), was persuaded that the
letters were from
Chapter 6 of the Gospel of Mark, from the end of verse 52 ("For they
did not
understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened") and the
beginning of
verse 53 ("And when they had crossed over, they came to land at
Gennesaret, and
moored to the shore.")
One group of letters caught O'Callaghan's attention: the four letters
in the center of the
fragment "<nnes.>" The letters puzzled him. Suddenly, he recalled what
they reminded
him of: the middle four letters of the word "Ge<nnes>aret."
When he checked the various passages where the word "Gennesaret"
appears in the
Bible, only one had words around it which could fit the other letters
he could read on
the parchment: Mark 6:52-53.
Thoroughly astounded (he knew that, if the identification was correct,
he had
discovered the oldest text of the Gospel we possess), O'Callaghan
consulted with his
Rector, Martini, then published his discovery.
O'Callaghan's "discovery" generated a storm of controversy, first
among a limited
group of specialists, and then throughout the mass media. Every aspect
of the
phenomenon was scrutinized: O'Callaghan's reading of the various
letters (Had he
identified each letter correctly?); the correspondence between 7Q5 and
the Gospel of
Mark (Might not the passage come from somewhere else?); and, above
all, the dating of
the fragment (Could it really be from the period between 50 B.C. and
50 A.D.?).
Dating Difficulties
In his first article (there were several as the controversy
developed), O'Callaghan
stated he had used the writing style of the fragment as his dating
standard.
Since 7Q5 was written in <Zierstil >(ornamental style), a style used
from 50 B.C. to 50
A.D. (this was the dating of the noted Oxford University paleographer,
Colin H.
Roberts ), the fragment was necessarily datable to around 40-50 A.D.
(It had to be a few
years after the death of Jesus, but prior to 50 A.D.)
Moreover, it was clear to O'Callaghan 7Q5 could not be dated later
than 68 A.D., the
year the Qumran caves had been sealed by the <Decima Legio Pretensis
>(Vespasian's
Roman legion). In that year, Vespasian, marching toward Jerusalem, had
arrived at the
Dead Sea and ordered his troops to fan out and massacre the small
Jewish monastic
communities of the area.
The monks' scrolls and codexes were hidden in natural caves (the
Qumran caves), and
remained unknown until they were discovered by accident by Bedouins in
1947.
Theological Implications
To understand the consternation caused by O'Callaghan's finding, we
must consider
the historical context. According to traditional Catholics
(represented at the Venice
Conference by members of the Italian <Communion and Liberation
>movement),
O'Callaghan's findings "revolutionize" the dating of the Gospels, up
until a short time
ago assigned by nearly all scholars to the period between 70 and 120
AD.
But the important point is less the date itself than it is <the use to
which such an early
dating can be put >in the ideological war now raging in the Church
over the legacy of
Vatican II and, more generally, Catholicism's relation to modernity.
The Catholic traditionalists hold that an earlier Gospel date is
important because it
directly refutes "liberal Protestants and modernist Catholics" who
hold that the
historical Jesus hardly resembles the "later" Jesus of faith. The
Lefebvrists are in
agreement with this view; in the April 15, 1995 edition of their
bulletin <Si Si No No>,
which focused on O'Callaghan's dating of the 7Q5 fragment, they
censure modern
biblical scholars as "enemies of Gospel historicity."
For traditionalists, O'Callaghan's theses are determinative in
overturning the
"rationalist" biblical criticism (<Formgeschichte>) of scholars such
as Rudolf Bultmann
(Bultmann, while accepting the historical figure of Jesus, relegated
to mythology most
of what he termed the New Testament "framework," including the Virgin
Birth, the
Resurrection, the Ascension, the Assumption, and all miracles).
Bultmann maintained
that a process of "de-mythification" was necessary in Christianity, a
purification of the
Christian message to return it to its original form, the form he
believed it had when
first preached by Jesus and his immediate disciples (see box on
Bultmann.)
Many would agree that Bultmann's legacy, in so far as it divides the
historical Jesus
from the Christ of faith, has been harmful. Under his theory, Jesus
and all the historical
facts of his mission suffer a grave diminishment.
But the debate becomes more complicated when Catholic traditionalists
brand as
"liberal and modernist" all those who hesitate to agree, often on
scientific grounds, with
O'Callaghan's contention that 7Q5 is from the Gospel of Mark, and this
has happened in
Europe in recent months.
For example, a new book on the 7Q5 fragment has just appeared in Rome.
Entitled
<Vangelo e Storicita> (<The Gospels and Historicity>), it is an
anthology of articles on
the dating of the Gospels which first appeared in two conservative
Italian Catholic
journals, <Il Sabato >(now defunct) and <30 Giorni> (in English, <30
Days>).
These articles contain frontal attacks on Pontifical Bible Institute
member Father
Gianfranco Ravasi and Naples University Theological Faculty professor
Father
Vittorio Fusco , accusing them of "Protestant-leaning" interpretations
in their biblical
criticism. (The two do make use of Bultmann's <Formgeschichte>).
These criticisms even extend to the <Instructions >published in 1964
by the Pontifical
Biblical Institute and to the Doctrinal Constitution on Divine
Revelation, <Dei
Verbum>, approved by Vatican II. In short, enamored of O'Callaghan's
thesis, some of
his supporters are mounting an attack on much of modern Catholic
biblical criticism -
including that sanctioned by the Pontifical Biblical Institute and the
Second Vatican
Council.
<Dei Verbum >(Chapter II,< The Transmission of Divine Revelation>,
paragraphs 7
and 8), does suggest that Catholics can understand the Gospels to have
been written in
stages. (For example, as in the following sequence: first Jesus spoke,
then his disciples
and the early Christian community remembered and repeated his words,
then the
evangelists wrote the words down in the Gospels as we have them.)
Now, if the Gospel of Mark was already written 40 or 50 A.D., there is
not a great deal
of time for such a process to have occurred. And this is precisely
what the supporters of
O'Callaghan argue: that the whole idea of a multi-stage development of
the Gospels -
even, apparently, when sanctioned by Vatican II - must be abandoned
due to
O'Callaghan's remarkable discovery.
This may be going too far. As Giancarlo Biguzzi , Professor of Sacred
Scriptures and
New Testament Studies at Rome's Pontifical Urban University, commented
to us at the
Venice Conference: "The precise way in which the Gospels are
historical has been an
issue since the beginning. Irenaeus spoke of it in 180 and St.
Augustine wrote a book
on the subject. The Second Vatican Council confirmed that the Gospels
are historical,
but described their origin as 'mediated, not immediate.'
"Jesus' words and deeds were neither recorded nor filmed, but
preserved in the
memories of his disciples, and disciples of disciples, as the Council
stated, 'those of
their circle'; that is already the third generation.
"Jesus spoke, then he was crucified. Thanks to oral tradition,
Christ's words were
transmitted with absolute fidelity. After the oral phase, some pieces
were written,
mostly the parables. About 90% of the Gospels came directly from
Jesus, but the
remaining 10% was added during the oral transmission or by the
Evangelists. The
words of Jesus are history; the oral tradition with its variations is
not considered
historical in the same way, but is attributed to autonomous catechists
and to the
Evangelists, who added something of their own."
Catholic traditionalists do not approve this formulation, since it
suggests to them that
scholars are leaving open the possibility that the New Testament
authors "added" to
the figure of Jesus to emphasize his greatness or authority - even
"exaggerated" some
things, that is, made them up. And, in fact, some modern scholars,
like Bultmann, have
said precisely this.
For Catholic traditionalists, every word the Gospels say about Christ
is perfectly
accurate history. They argue that this position has always been upheld
by the Church,
and that O'Callaghan's discovery is proof that it is the right
position.
In short, the Catholic traditionalists are using the 7Q5 fragment as a
weapon against 150
years of scholarly biblical criticism.
In Venice, O'Callaghan, assisted by Father Albert Dou , a Jesuit
mathematician, used
statistics to show that the text of 7Q5 cannot be anything but a
passage from Mark. In
fact, he said, computations show the odds are <1 in 900 billion> of
any other passage
having the same sequence of letters.
The Patriarch of Venice, Cardinal Marco Ce , agreed with O'Callaghan:
"Studies of
archeological finds can offer us documentation of a complete
continuity between the
Lord and a tradition which cannot be manipulated. We must appreciate
this type of
research."
Father Klemens Stock , current Rector of the Pontifical Bible
Institute, was guarded.
"Debates are to be expected in the scientific community, particularly
when what has
formerly been considered a solid hypothesis is opened to questioning.
The debate
should not digress into questions of faith. I am convinced that, for
the ordinary faithful,
whether the Gospels were written in 50 or 70 A.D. is of little
importance. Our faith is
based on our relationship with the living Lord, who truly walked this
earth. That the
Gospels are closely linked to the historical Jesus is a no longer
disputed fact."
Don Giuseppe Ghiberti, President of the Italian Biblical
Association, also
recommended avoiding polemics. "Whether there are 20, or 40, or more
years between
Christ's death and the writing of the Gospels makes a considerable
difference, but it is
no crime to harbor doubts concerning hypothetical dates for the
Gospels, as in the case
with O'Callaghan's study. Let us not radicalize the question."
This article was taken from "Inside the Vatican."
Bogus Fracture
> On 9 Feb 2005 19:31:31 -0800, "Bogus Fracture"
<bogusf...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Indeed, there is not. So why are you talking to me?
> >
> >BF
>
>
> Your writing is not from you, it is from someone named like you who
> lived two generations from now. :)
>
> The use of the capitalising the BF without use of the fullstops B.F.
> clearly date your writing to 2100 and thus it is impossible to have
> been written in 2005. :)
Well your font is wrong when you type an elevated rd in 173rd so the
memos about your existence are forgeries.
> Likewise no modern historian makes reference to you even existing so
> therefor you don't.
>
> In fact, you never actually lives, you are a myth that someone made
up
> to support their theory of life the universe and everything. :)
>
> How silly for anyone to actually believe you were a person.
I live within your heart.
B.F.
Mark T
> I live within your heart.
Griz lives within my fart.
Mark T
>>The dates of the Gospels
>
> How am I doing so far Mark? :)
I'm still mulling over it.
Didn't you do any real work today?
Mark T
http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue4/Articles/dating_early_christian_gospels.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dating Early Christian Gospels
by Andrew Bernhard
A remarkable number of ancient gospels not included in the New Testament
have been recovered during the past two centuries. In evaluating these
gospels, scholars have come to astonishingly different conclusions about
when they were written. Some scholars have assigned many of the newly
recovered gospels to the first century of the Christian movement.[1] Others
have concluded that virtually all of these gospels were written during the
middle or late second century.[2] No scholarly consensus regarding the dates
of these gospels seems likely anytime in the foreseeable future.
Although there has been such vigorous debate about the dates of
gospel origins, it may be that exact dates are not necessary for
understanding the place of early gospels[3] in the emergence of
Christianity. Indeed, I will argue, they are counterproductive. Early
gospels cannot and should not be dated to a specific year or decade. Dates
of gospel origins cannot be assessed with such a high degree of precision
because the gospels stem from a sparsely documented period in distant
history. Dating gospels is a largely arbitrary exercise that obscures the
fact that all early gospels, canonical and non-canonical alike, are
essentially the same kind of writings.
Early Christian Gospels
The texts under consideration in this essay have two defining
characteristics. First, they are gospels. While the term "gospel" (Gk.
euaggelion) has a long and varied history,[4] it is here defined as a
written text that has a primary focus of recounting the teachings and/or
activities of Jesus; interactions between Jesus and his disciples in the
context of his earthly ministry are a necessary characteristic. Thus, in
this essay, the term does not refer to an oral proclamation of the Christian
message (e.g., Paul's "gospel"; 1 Cor 5:1-5) or to an ancient homily (e.g.,
the Gospel of Truth).
Second, the texts under consideration here are early. That is, they were
indisputably written before the end of the second century (and presumably
after the crucifixion of Jesus). At least one of two kinds of evidence is
required to establish that a gospel is early.[5] An early date for a gospel
may be confirmed by an extant manuscript that was copied by around the end
of the second century.[6] Or, the gospel may be explicitly named in the
works of an author who commenced his or her writing activities before the
close of the second century.
Significant descriptions or portions of twelve ancient texts that meet the
criteria necessary to be considered an early gospel have been preserved from
antiquity. Six early gospels are attested by manuscripts from the second
century or shortly thereafter: Matthew (?64, ?67),[7] Luke (?4),[8] John
(?52),[9] Gospel of Thomas (P.Oxy. 1),[10] Gospel of Peter (P.Oxy.
4009)[11], and an "Unknown Gospel" (P.Egerton 2).[12] Six additional early
gospels are attested by patristic citations from the same time period: Mark
(Irenaeus, Haer. 3.11.8), Secret Mark,[13] Gospel of the Ebionites
(Irenaeus, Haer. 1.26.2; 3.21.1), Gospel of the Nazareans (Eusebius, Hist.
eccl. 4.22.8), Gospel of the Hebrews (Clement, Strom. 2.9.45), and Marcion's
gospel (Irenaeus, Haer. 1.27.2).
Dating Early Christian Gospels
While some extraordinary claims have been made about precisely
when early gospels (and parts of them) were written,[14] it is impossible to
determine the dates of gospel origins with much certainty. An absolute date
can be assigned to an ancient text only if a clear relationship can be
established between the text and another writing or event from a specific,
known time. Unfortunately, such writings and events are almost entirely
lacking from the time period when the gospels were written.
Terminus post quem. Only two known events are helpful for
determining how soon early gospels may have been written after the death of
Jesus: the fall of Jerusalem (70 C.E.) and the martyrdom of Peter (ca. 64
C.E.). Yet, these events are useful for dating only two gospels and a
portion of a third. Matthew and Luke must have been written after Titus'
siege of Jerusalem because they allude to it (Matt 22:7; Luke 19:43-44,
21:20-24), but it is not clear that Mark was aware of the event.[15] John 21
must have been written after Peter's death,[16] but the final chapter may
have been added to the gospel long after the rest had been written.[17]
There are no certain references to any datable historical events in John
1-20.[18] The same is true for the eight non-canonical early gospels.[19]
On the basis of literary relationships, only one gospel must have been
written after Matthew, Luke, or the datable portion of John: the Gospel of
the Ebionites presupposes Matthew and Luke.[20] The remainder lack the
extensive verbal correspondence necessary to establish a literary
relationship. It is not at all clear that the Gospel of Thomas,[21] Gospel
of Peter,[22] or "Unknown Gospel" of P.Egerton 2[23] is dependent upon the
canonical gospels for their material. The accusations of the church fathers
do not establish that Marcion actually abridged ("mutilated") Luke.[24] Too
few fragments of the Gospel of the Nazareans and Gospel of the Hebrews have
been preserved to allow for a definitive judgment of their sources.[25] It
is not even possible to determine which came first: Mark or Secret Mark.[26]
Terminus ante quem. Trying to determine the latest possible
dates for gospel origins is also a difficult task. Certainly, all early
gospels were completed before the end of the second century, but how much
earlier is unclear. On the basis of manuscript evidence alone, it is only
possible to determine that two gospels were in circulation before the middle
of the second century, one non-canonical gospel ("Unknown Gospel," P.Egerton
2)[27] and one canonical gospel (John, ?52).[28] All additional information
about which gospels were in use by the early decades of the second century
comes from ambiguous patristic testimonies.
There are two writers who at first glance appear to be
potentially useful for determining which (canonical)[29] gospels were in
circulation by the early second century. First, it appears possible that
Ignatius of Antioch was familiar with Matthew when he wrote his letters
around 110 C.E. In various passages, Ignatius seems to allude to the gospel,
although he does not mention it explicitly.[30] Most of these passages,
however, are vague references at best and could easily be the result of oral
tradition.[31] Also, careful examination of the Matthew-Ignatius parallels
reveals an interesting trend. Ignatius has an overwhelming preference for
material found in Matthew, but not the other synoptics.[32] This excessive
familiarity with special M material has suggested to some that Ignatius may
have known a source of Matthew rather than the gospel itself.[33]
Second, Papias of Hierapolis mentioned writings by Matthew and Mark in his
five volume Oracles of the Lord Explained around 130 C.E. However, his
comments, known only second-hand through Eusebius, are not at all clear. His
brief description of a writing of Matthew as "logia in the Hebrew dialect"
is too vague to be a certain reference to the canonical text (Eusebius,
Hist. eccl. 3.39.16).[34] Further ambiguity surrounds Papias' comments about
Mark. Papias states only that Mark wrote down notes of Peter's preaching
(Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15). Yet, it is difficult to believe that so
carefully constructed a narrative as Mark could have been regarded as a mere
chaotic collection of unordered notes.[35] Further, Papias does not actually
state that these notes were the canonical gospel (nor does Eusebius imply
that he did).[36] Thus, it is not certain that Papias was describing either
canonical Matthew or Mark in the excerpts of Eusebius.
All early gospels, then, were written sometime between the death of Jesus
and the second half of the second century. Three gospels[37] must have been
written after 70 C.E.; how long after is anybody's guess. Two gospels[38]
must have been written before the end of the first half of the second
century C.E.; how long before is anybody's guess. With such chronologically
distant boundaries, it is little wonder that scholars have come up with such
divergent dates of origins for early gospels. The dates are based on nothing
more concrete than each scholar's impression of precisely when small
stories, sayings, or phrases might or might not have been meaningful to a
particular writer or community. There is considerable room for differences
of opinion with such subjective analysis.[39]
Conceptualizing Early Christian Gospels
Clearly, there are reasons to be hesitant about assigning dates
to early gospels. To begin with, there is little to be gained by assigning
them. Speculations are not beneficial and possible dates of greater than
half a century can hardly be of more than negligible interpretive value.
Also, there is no way to appeal to a scholarly consensus to settle the
matter with non-canonical gospels. Finally, there is a great deal to be lost
by trying to date early gospels. When some gospels are located in the first
century and others in the second, the implication is unavoidable: the
earlier gospels are more original than their later, derivative counterparts.
To steer clear of this unwarranted prioritization, all early
gospels should be regarded simply as products of pre-canonical
Christianity.[40] All parts of all early gospels were likely written after
the death of Jesus (ca. 30 C.E.), but before Irenaeus created a broad
consensus that only four[41] individual[42] gospels could be regarded as
authoritative scripture (ca. 180 C.E.). The period for the writing of the
early gospels might reasonably be narrowed to something like 60-150 C.E.,
but the gospels should remain in a broad, rather than narrow, context. This
will make it easy to see that all early gospels are analogous developments
of the Jesus tradition. They have a great deal in common.
All early gospels have a common background. They come from an
age when traditions about Jesus had not yet been fixed. Most these
traditions, in fact, were still being circulated orally. In the "unwritten
tradition," various narratives about Jesus were being recounted along with
parables and teachings attributed to him (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.9.11). The
oral traditions were so abundant that, as one ancient writer put it, "if
every one of them were written down, I suppose the world itself could not
contain the books that would be written" (John 21:25).
All early gospels underwent a similar process of formation.
Probably over considerable periods of time,[43] the evangelists molded their
gospels into their final forms by adapting traditional materials from
various oral and written sources. Although so few Christian writings have
survived from this time period, nothing is more certain than that traditions
about Jesus were subject to constant revision. The lists of Jesus' teachings
that circulated during this time period[44] were revised easily and often.
For example, the few extant manuscripts of the Gospel of Thomas[45]
illustrate clearly[46] how sayings were undoubtedly rearranged,[47]
expanded,[48] contracted,[49] or placed in interpretive contexts.[50]
Narratives gospels also were frequently, thoroughly reworked. Consider Mark.
The material in this gospel[51] was placed in at least seven radically
different arrangements.[52]
All early gospels also share at least one more additional common
characteristic: their reason for being written. By creating a gospel, every
ancient author was trying to present his or her beliefs about Jesus in a way
that would be helpful to his followers after the end of his physical life.
The gospel writers may have drawn on oral traditions that, to the modern
mind, seem to be of doubtful worth. They may have modified material in a way
that we would regard as unjustified. Yet always, for each evangelist, the
underlying motivation for writing was the same.
Conclusion
While it may be only natural to wonder exactly when significant
ancient texts were written, some questions are better left unanswered. After
nearly two millennia, the dates of gospel origins cannot be determined as
precisely as we might like. Assigning speculative dates to early gospels
does not contribute to our understanding of these texts, but inevitably
prioritizes them. To avoid doing such injustice to these texts, the gospels
should be located in the broad context of pre-canonical Christianity (ca.
60-150 C.E.). Then, it will be possible to appreciate all early Christian
gospels for what they are: some of the first attempts ever made to
articulate the meaning of the life of Jesus, sincere attempts made by people
who revered him.
Bibliography
Attridge, Harold W. "Appendix: The Greek Fragments." Pages 96-128 in vol. 1
of Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2-7: Together with XIII, 2*, Brit. Lib. Or.4926(1),
and P.OXY. 1, 654, 655. Edited by Bentley Layton. 2 vols. Leiden: E.J.
Brill, 1989.
Bell, H. Idris, and T.C. Skeat, eds. Fragments of an Unknown Gospel and
Other Early Christian Papyri. London: Oxford University Press, 1935.
Berger, Klaus, and Christine Nord. Das neue Testament und frühchristliche
Schriften. Leipzig: Insel Verlag, 1999.
Bernhard, Andrew. "Jesus of Nazareth in Early Christian Gospels." No pages.
Cited 11 June 2001. Online: http://www.gospels.net.
Black, C. Clifton. Mark: Images of an Apostolic Interpreter. Minneapolis:
Fortress, 2001.
Blomberg, Craig L. The Historical Reliablity of the Gospels. Downers Grove:
Inter-Varsity, 1987.
Brown, Raymond. The Gospel According to John. Anchor Bible 29. Garden City:
Doubleday, 1966-1970.
Cameron, Ron. "Thomas, Gospel of." Pages 535-540 in vol. 6 of The Anchor
Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York:
Doubleday, 1996.
- - - . The Other Gospels: Non-Canonical Gospel Texts. Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1982.
Comfort, Philip W., and David P. Barrett, eds. The Text of the Earliest New
Testament Greek Manuscripts. Rev. and enl. ed. Wheaton: Tyndale House, 2001.
Crossan, John Dominic. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean
Peasant. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991.
Culpepper, R. Alan. John, The Son of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend.
Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1994.
Daniels, Jon B. "The Egerton Gospel: Its Place in Early Christianity." Ph.D.
diss., The Claremont Graduate School, 1990.
Ehrman, Bart. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early
Christian Writings. 2d ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
- - - . The New Testament and Other Early Christian Writings: A Reader. New
York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Elliott, J.K., ed. The Apocryphal New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1993.
Holmes, Michael W., ed. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English
Translations. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.
Jenkins, Philip. Hidden Gospels: How the Search For Jesus Lost Its Way. New
York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Knox, John. Marcion and the New Testament: An Essay in the Early History of
the Canon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942.
Koester, Helmut. Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development.
Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990.
- - - . "Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels." Harvard Theological Review 73
(1980): 105-130.
Kümmel, Werner Georg. Introduction to the New Testament. Translated by A.J.
Mattill. 14th ed. Nashville: Abingdon, 1966.
Luhrmann, D., and P.J. Parsons, eds. "4009. Gospel of Peter?" Pages 1-5 in
vol. 60 of The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1994.
Massaux, Édouard. The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian
Literature Before Saint Irenaeus. Translated by Norman J. Belval and Suzanne
Hecht. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1986.
Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. 3 vols. New
York: Doubleday, 1991-2001.
Miller, Robert J., ed. The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholars Version.
Sonoma: Polebridge, 1994.
Patterson, Stephen J. The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus. Sonoma: Polebridge,
1993.
Powell, Evan. The Unfinished Gospel: Notes on the Quest for the Historical
Jesus. Westlake Village: Symposium Books, 1994.
Roberts, Alexander, and James Donaldson, eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers.
1885-1887. 10 vols. Repr. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994.
Robinson, James M., and Helmut Koester. Trajectories through Early
Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971.
Robinson, John A.T. Redating the New Testament. Philadelphia: Westminster,
1976.
- - - . The Priority of John. Edited by J.F. Coakley. London: Meyer-Stone,
1985.
Sanders, E.P., and Margaret Davies. Studying the Synoptic Gospels.
Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989.
Schneemelcher, Wilhem, ed. New Testament Apocrypha. Translated by R. McL.
Wilson. 2 vols. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1991.
Sibinga, J. Smit. "Ignatius and Matthew." Novum Testamentum 8 (1966):
263-283.
Smith, Morton. Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1973.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Robert J. Miller, ed., The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholars Version
(Sonoma: Polebridge, 1994), 6.
[2] John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (3 vols.;
New York: Doubleday, 1991-2001), 1:114-139.
[3] Early gospels are written texts about Jesus that were certainly written
before 200 C.E., as will be discussed below.
[4] Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development
(Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990), 1-40.
[5] Helmut Koester, "Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels," HTR 73 (1980):
107-112. Koester employs these two kinds of evidence, although he also
recognizes other ways to identify early gospels.
[6] Since there is some ambiguity in dating ancient manuscripts, those dated
from the first quarter of the third century C.E. are regarded as evidence
that a text had been written before 200 C.E.
[7] Philip W. Comfort and David P. Barrett, eds., The Text of the Earliest
New Testament Greek Manuscripts (rev. and enl. ed.; Wheaton: Tyndale House,
2001), 43-44.
[8] Comfort and Barrett, Earliest New Testament, 43.
[9] Comfort and Barrett, Earliest New Testament, 365.
[10] Harold W. Attridge, "Appendix: The Greek Fragments" in Nag Hammadi
Codex II, 2-7: Together with XIII, 2*, Brit. Lib. Or.4926(1), and P.OXY. 1,
654, 655 (ed. Bentley Layton; 2 vols.; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1989), 1:96-97.
[11] D. Luhrmann and P.J. Parsons, eds., "4009. Gospel of Peter?" in The
Oxyrhynchus Papyri (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1994), 60:1-5.
[12] H. Idris Bell and T.C. Skeat, eds., Fragments of an Unknown Gospel and
Other Early Christian Papyri (London: Oxford University Press, 1935), 2.
[13] Morton Smith, Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 446-47. Clement describes
Secret Mark in an otherwise unattested letter discovered by Smith.
[14] John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean
Peasant (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991), 427-434
[15] Werner Georg Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament (trans. A.J.
Mattill; 14th ed.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1966), 71.
[16] Klaus Berger and Christine Nord, Das neue Testament und frühchristliche
Schriften (Leipzig: Insel Verlag, 1999), 313.
[17] Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John (AB 29; Garden City:
Doubleday, 1966-1970), 1080.
[18] John A.T. Robinson, The Priority of John (ed. J.F. Coakley; London:
Meyer-Stone, 1985), 79-81. Although it has often been asserted that John
alludes to the formulation of the birkat ha-minim in the 90s C.E., Robinson
rightly points out that there is no basis for believing that the Greek word
aposynagogos (John 9:22, 12:42, 16:2) connotes a formal excommunication,
such as the Jewish "Benediction Against Heretics." See also: Evan Powell,
The Unfinished Gospel: Notes on the Quest for the Historical Jesus (Westlake
Village: Symposium Books, 1994), 130-136.
[19] Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed.. New Testament Apocrypha (trans. R. McL.
Wilson; 2 vols.; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1991), 1:97, 107, 113,
159, 169, 176, 215, 221, 385, 392.
[20] Schneemelcher, Apocrypha, 1:169.
[21] Stephen J. Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus (Sonoma:
Polebridge, 1993), 17-120.
[22] Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early
Christian Writings (2d ed.; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 184.
[23] Jon B. Daniels, "The Egerton Gospel: Its Place in Early Christianity"
(Ph.D. diss., The Claremont Graduate School, 1990), 27-138.
[24] John Knox, Marcion and the New Testament: An Essay in the Early History
of the Canon (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942), 97.
[25] Schneemelcher, Gospels, 1:136.
[26] Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:121-122.
[27] R. Alan Culpepper, John, The Son of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend
(Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1994), 108. The early date of
P.Egerton 2 has recently been challenged; some scholars prefer to date the
manuscript closer to 200 C.E. than 100 C.E.
[28] Some imprecision in dating this tiny fragment must be accepted since it
preserves less than 150 lettes.
[29] One should not expect any evidence for the early existence of
non-canonical gospels. The patristic sources that have been preserved were,
of course, those that were valued by later Christians who recognized only
four authoritative gospels.
[30] Édouard Massaux, The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on
Christian Literature Before Saint Irenaeus (trans. Norman J. Belval and
Suzanne Hecht; Macon: Mercer University Press, 1986), 86-96.
[31] Koester, Ancient, 315.
[32] Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliablity of the Gospels (Downers
Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1987), 206-207.
[33] J. Smit Sibinga, "Ignatius and Matthew," NovT 8 (1966): 263-283.
[34] James M. Robinson and Helmut Koester, Trajectories through Early
Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 74. Scholars have frequently
speculated that the logia ("sayings") may have been a sayings collection
(like Q) rather than Matthew itself.
[35] John A.T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1976), 114-115.
[36] C. Clifton Black, Mark: Images of an Apostolic Interpreter
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 90.
[37] Matthew, Luke, and the Gospel of the Ebionites.
[38] John and the "Unknown Gospel" of P.Egerton 2.
[39] Philip Jenkins, Hidden Gospels: How the Search For Jesus Lost Its Way
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 93.
[40] In this essay, the pre-canonical period is designated as the time
before there was agreement about any significant portion of the canon. While
the earliest known list of the New Testament as it now stands in modern
Bibles was not written until 367 C.E., the central role of the four gospels
was never seriously challenged after the time of Irenaeus (ca. 180 C.E.).
[41] Not one gospel, as Marcion would have liked.
[42] Not a harmony of four gospels, as Tatian would have liked.
[43] Ron Cameron, "Thomas, Gospel of," ABD 6:537.
[44] Robinson and Koester, Trajectories, 85-95.
[45] Attridge, "Greek Fragments" in Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2-7, 1:98-109.
Attridge has compiled a complete collection of patristic references to the
Gospel of Thomas and also presents an exhaustive list of the differences
between the complete Coptic manuscript and the Greek fragments of the text.
[46] While the differences between the different manuscripts may have arisen
after the close of the second century, they illuminate the process of
revision that was undoubtedly at work earlier.
[47] e.g., Coptic sayings 30 and 77b are found together in P.Oxy. 1.23-30.
[48] e.g., Coptic saying 26 has been significantly expanded in P.Oxy. 655,
col. i.1-17.
[49] e.g. the portion "he will become troubled" portion of Coptic saying 2
has been omitted in P.Oxy. 654.7-8.
[50] e.g., according to Hippolytus, Haer 5.7.20, the Naasenes modified the
text of saying 4 to refer to their system of aeons.
[51] This presumes the two source solution to the synoptic problem, which
perhaps should not be so casually accepted. For a brief summary of concerns
about the validity of the two source hypothesis, see: E.P. Sanders and
Margaret Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels (Philadelphia: Trinity Press
International, 1989), 112-19.
[52] At least seven different versions of the core synoptic material are
known from the first two centuries: 1. canonical Mark; 2. Secret Mark, a
longer version of the canonical gospel that was valued by Clement of
Alexandria; 3. Another longer version of the canonical gospel that Clement
condemned as a false creation of the Carpocratians; 4. Matthew; 5. Luke; 6.
Marcion's gospel, a text that Irenaeus (Haer. 1.27.2) and Tertullian (Marc.
4.4) claimed was an abridgement ("mutilation") of Luke; 7. Gospel of the
Ebionites, a text that combined the material in Luke and Matthew.
Interestingly, even with all these different versions, later writers still
felt compelled to append three different endings to the canonical gospel.
Mark T
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/gospels.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John Dominic Crossan:
Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies DePaul University
Did oral tradition play a part in preserving the traditions of the early
movement?
Oral tradition is something that we have rather abused, I think, in
scholarship. If you take, for example, the common material behind the Q
gospel and the Gospel of Thomas, there's 37 sayings without any order so
this is not a document of any type. Who is preserving it? The people who are
living like Jesus, the itinerants who are trying to follow the life of
Jesus. They are interested in these stories, not just because of oral
tradition, but because it justifies their lifestyle. So whenever somebody
says oral tradition, I want to say, "Could you show it to me? I know you
can't show me oral tradition, but can you show it to me some way in the
text, or at least, in the lifestyle of somebody who would have cared about
it?" Otherwise we have a free-floating oral tradition that is becoming kind
of meaningless.
Well, how do you think the Jesus traditions were preserved then?
I think the Jesus traditions were preserved by those who were trying to live
them. Whence, for example, those who preserved, "Blessed are the destitute."
They preserved it because they were destitute and they thought they were
blessed. They had a vested interest in remembering that saying because it
described them.
How do the four gospels evolve then?
The first gospel, Mark, is around the year 70. So within 70 and, say, 95, we
have the four gospels. 25 years. But that leaves 70 to 30. 40 years before
that. If you watch the creativity within that 25 year span, from Mark being
copied into Matthew and Luke, possibly also by John, then you have to face
the creativity of that 40 years, even when you don't have written gospels.
And that may be equally intense.
And so you're making it sound as if the gospels are extremely unreliable as
evidence.
The gospels are, first of all, extremely reliable historical documents for
their own time and place. Mark tells us very much about, say, a community
writing in the 70's. John, a community writing in the mid-90's. But, since
we have four of them, we get four vectors, then, on the basic tradition that
they're working with. What is common, we might be able to then work, by
going back very carefully through those deliberate... what scholars call
"redactional" elements in there. If Mark just made it up any old way, and
Matthew did the same, we could not do anything historically with them.
What do the gospels have in common? Is it possible to say what they do
share?
What the gospels do share, of course, is Jesus. But that is almost trivial
to say that. Because they are interested in not simply repeating Jesus. They
are interested in interpreting Jesus. Matthew, even when he has Mark in
front of him, will change what Jesus says. And that's what's most important
for me, to understand the mind of an evangelist. It is that Matthew is
saying, "I will change Mark so that Mark's Jesus speaks to my people." Now,
there's a logic to his change. He's not just changing it to be difficult. He
will change Mark, but what Jesus says in Mark does not make sense to
Matthew's people.... What is consistent about the gospels is that they
change consistent with their own theology, with their own communities'
needs. They do not change at random. If you begin to understand how Matthew
changes Mark, you see it worked again and again and again. You don't have to
make up a different reason for every change. Once you understand Matthew's
theology, you can almost predict how he will change.
How significant and discrediting to belief are the differences between the
four gospels?
For somebody who thinks the four gospels are like four witnesses in a court
trying to tell exactly how the accident happened, as it were, this is
extremely troubling. It is not at all troubling to me because they told me,
quite honestly, that they were gospels. And a gospel is good news ... "good"
and "news" ... updated interpretation. So when I went into Matthew, I did
not expect journalism. I expected gospel. That's what I found. I have no
problem with that.
So, in other words, they're doing what they set out to do, but it's not what
we think they're setting out to do.
We have the problem, not Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They do a superb
job, or Christianity would not be still around, of doing what they had to
do. We want them to be journalists and we're very unhappy with them.
Can you characterize the way Mark portrays Jesus and what kind of audience
he's trying to play to?
Let me compare Mark with John to explain how two gospels do it differently
in an episode we call "the agony in the garden". Now, there is no agony in
John and there is no garden in Mark, but we call it the agony in the garden
because we put them together. Mark tells the story in which Jesus, the night
before he dies, is prostrate on the ground, begging God, "If this all could
pass, but I will do what you want." And the disciples all flee. Now that's
an awful picture. That makes sense to me because Mark is writing to a
persecuted community who know what it's like to die. That's how you die,
feeling abandoned by God.
Over to John. Jesus is not on the ground in John. The whole cohort of the
Jerusalem forces come out - 600 troops come out to capture Jesus, and they
end up with their faces on the ground in John. And Jesus says, "Of course I
will do what the Father wants." And Jesus tells them to "Let my disciples
go." He's in command of the whole operation. You have a Jesus out of control
almost in Mark, a Jesus totally in control in John. Both gospel. Neither of
them are historical. I don't think either of them know exactly what
happened. Mark is writing to a persecuted church, "Here is how to die ...
like Jesus." John is writing, I think, to a community that's hanging on by
its fingernails. It's getting more and more marginalized. Its Jesus is
getting more and more in control, in control of the passion, in control of
Pilate. The more John's community is out of control, the more Jesus is in
control. Both of that makes absolute sense to me. But both are gospel.
What's the significant difference between Matthew and Luke and Mark? What
kind of differences do they bring in?
If you look at Luke 4, for example, the opening, almost paradigmatic, scene
in Luke. Jesus goes into the synagogue. He takes the scroll of Isaiah. He is
literate of course, he can read. And he's a scholar. He can find his way
around an unpointed Hebrew scroll and find exactly the place he wants and
reads it and comments on it. Jesus is a scholar. Jesus is rather like Luke,
actually....
Luke gives us his big scene up front. Matthew does the same with the Sermon
on the Mount. It's on a mountain, where else? Moses is on a mountain ...
Sinai. Jesus is on a mountain saying, "You've heard what was said to them of
old, what I say to you." I couldn't imagine Matthew starting off with
something else. Jesus is a new Moses. All of that is coherent within the
theology of each evangelist....
There is no Sermon on the Mount and there is no mountain to have a sermon on
in Mark, and there is no scene in the synagogue at Nazareth where Jesus
reads Isaiah and is almost killed. None of that is in Mark. One is in
Matthew. The other is in Luke.
As we read John, what does it tell us about the direction the other church
is taking?
As I read John, I come to two conclusions. One is that this is a Jewish
group. If you want to call them Christians, they're Jewish Christians.
They're one group within Judaism. The second conclusion is that they are
being more and more marginalized. That is, their appeal to lead all of
Judaism is becoming less and less likely. They're becoming smaller and
smaller and smaller. And they can refer to their fellow Jews as "the Jews".
They are feeling profoundly alienated from their own Judaism. In plain
language, they're losing. And that means the language of invective gets
nastier and nastier. It's the loser in political campaigns that calls names.
So, Matthew is losing when he calls the Pharisees hypocrites and says "war
to them." That warns me that he is losing out to the Pharisees as he sees
it. John, he talks about "the Jews did this" or that awful statement about
the Jews are born of the Devil. That tells me that this community is
desperate. It's hanging on by its fingernails.
Athanasius
wrote:
>"Athanasius" wrote:
>
>>>The dates of the Gospels
>>
>> How am I doing so far Mark? :)
>
>I'm still mulling over it.
Good, I knew you would approach it from a scholarly angle. Its pretty
exciting I must say if these scholars are onto something fair dinkum.
>
>Didn't you do any real work today?
Yes I just finished the first page of our Journal. I have named it
"Journey to orthodoxy. I hope to upload it soom on the webpage
Took me hald the day just to organise the title page, which is all I
have done som far, looks like a late night at the puter.
Peace and grace
Pastor Dave
deep thoughts, Athanasius
<dcn_ath...@REMOVEyahoo.com.au> spake thusly:
>Scripture scholars were challenged to find one
>passage in the four Gospels
>giving clear evidence of a date later than 50 A.D.
Thanks for the post. Much of this is stuff that is so
simple to realize, that it only goes to show the
acrobatics people will go through, to deny the validity
of the NT. Which web page is this taken from?
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
Pastor Dave
>On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:25:32 +1000, Athanasius
><dcn_ath...@REMOVEyahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Scripture scholars were challenged to find one
>>passage in the four Gospels
>>giving clear evidence of a date later than 50 A.D.
>>
>>The dates of the Gospels
>
>And this -cutting edge- CURRENT scholarship.
This is what I try to point out to the doubters. They
are using outdated information. And biased
information, not based on one shred of evidence at
that.
Pastor Dave
>On 9 Feb 2005 19:31:31 -0800, "Bogus Fracture" <bogusf...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Indeed, there is not. So why are you talking to me?
>>
>>BF
>
>
>Your writing is not from you, it is from someone named like you who
>lived two generations from now. :)
>
>The use of the capitalising the BF without use of the fullstops B.F.
>clearly date your writing to 2100 and thus it is impossible to have
>been written in 2005. :)
>
>Likewise no modern historian makes reference to you even existing so
>therefor you don't.
>
>In fact, you never actually lives, you are a myth that someone made up
>to support their theory of life the universe and everything. :)
>
>How silly for anyone to actually believe you were a person.
<laugh> !
Pastor Dave
>On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:56:06 +1100, "Mark T" <what'sth@overthere>
>wrote:
>
>>"Athanasius" wrote:
>>
>>>>The dates of the Gospels
>>>
>>> How am I doing so far Mark? :)
>>
>>I'm still mulling over it.
>
>Good, I knew you would approach it from a scholarly angle. Its pretty
>exciting I must say if these scholars are onto something fair dinkum.
>>
>>Didn't you do any real work today?
>
>Yes I just finished the first page of our Journal. I have named it
>"Journey to orthodoxy. I hope to upload it soom on the webpage
Notice that when you provide the evidence, they demand
to know why you're spending time doing it. Of course,
if you don't spend time doing it, then they accuse you
of not backing up your claims. <chuckle>
#
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:25:32 +1000, after pondering
> deep thoughts, Athanasius
> <dcn_ath...@REMOVEyahoo.com.au> spake thusly:
>
>>Scripture scholars were challenged to find one
>>passage in the four Gospels
>>giving clear evidence of a date later than 50 A.D.
>
> Thanks for the post. Much of this is stuff that is so
> simple to realize, that it only goes to show the
> acrobatics people will go through, to deny the validity
> of the NT. Which web page is this taken from?
Indeed - some very interesting material to read through.
The source for the first article is:
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/May97/gospels.html
Second article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/12/24/db2402.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/12/24/ixportal.html
Third article:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3543/datof.htm
Fourth article:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/GOSPELS2.TXT
Hope that helps.
Athanasius
>On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:25:32 +1000, after pondering
>deep thoughts, Athanasius
><dcn_ath...@REMOVEyahoo.com.au> spake thusly:
>
>
>>Scripture scholars were challenged to find one
>>passage in the four Gospels
>>giving clear evidence of a date later than 50 A.D.
>
>Thanks for the post. Much of this is stuff that is so
>simple to realize, that it only goes to show the
>acrobatics people will go through, to deny the validity
>of the NT. Which web page is this taken from?
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/May97/gospels.html
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/GOSPELS2.TXT
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3543/datof.htm
Sorry I am terrible are keeping url's I shall remember for next time.
it certainly is exciting stuff though, hey?
Athanasius
wrote:
>I'm still mulling over it.
You realise the ramifications to Spong's theories don't you Mark?
Even he admitted that his whole system needs late dating to hold
water. Without late dating of the Gosples his theories are a lame
duck.
Peace and grace
Pastor Dave
deep thoughts, # <9...@numbers.for.you> spake thusly:
Thank you. I appreciate it.
The thing that people should come to understand, is
that since the temple was still standing when the NT
was written, the temple destruction speaks of that
temple. Thus, we should not be waiting for a third
temple.
"Not one stone". That's just what the Romans did.
They did not leave one stone upon another. They burned
the temple and then pried apart each and every stone,
to retrieve the melted gold that ran between them.
Yet people are waiting for a third temple, so that "not
one stone will be left upon another". Interesting, no?
See my post on the context of Revelation.
Thanks again for the links. :)
Pastor Dave
>On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:42:39 GMT, Pastor Dave
><newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:25:32 +1000, after pondering
>>deep thoughts, Athanasius
>><dcn_ath...@REMOVEyahoo.com.au> spake thusly:
>>
>>
>>>Scripture scholars were challenged to find one
>>>passage in the four Gospels
>>>giving clear evidence of a date later than 50 A.D.
>>
>>Thanks for the post. Much of this is stuff that is so
>>simple to realize, that it only goes to show the
>>acrobatics people will go through, to deny the validity
>>of the NT. Which web page is this taken from?
>
>http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/May97/gospels.html
>
>http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/GOSPELS2.TXT
>
>http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3543/datof.htm
>
>http://money.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/12/24/db2402.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/12/24/ixportal.html
>
>Sorry I am terrible are keeping url's I shall remember for next time.
>
>it certainly is exciting stuff though, hey?
Yes, quite. :) But this has been my position all
along. :)
Pastor Dave
>On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:56:06 +1100, "Mark T" <what'sth@overthere>
>wrote:
>
>
>>I'm still mulling over it.
>
>You realise the ramifications to Spong's theories don't you Mark?
>
>Even he admitted that his whole system needs late dating to hold
>water. Without late dating of the Gosples his theories are a lame
>duck.
That's because Spong admits a truth that most of
today's Christians won't admit. That's no defense of
Spong. I am only saying that he is on target with that
point. He just doesn't care how faulty the information
he uses to get to it are.
The fact is, as he said, the NT talks about a local
event and a local destruction and Jesus' return within
the lifetime of the Apostles (some). Thus, if he can
date it late, he can prove that Jesus either lied, or
didn't know what He was talking about. That's what
late dating does. It contradicts the words of Jesus,
that today's end timers ignore when they read the
Bible, or try to twist into something else, because
they look for things that aren't meant the way they
think they are. This whole end times theology of
today, came about because of this late dating of the NT
and people don't realize it. They've bought into a lie
from the pit of Hell and Bible teachers have been doing
acrobatics to try to get around Jesus' clear words.
They are no better than those who claim to believe the
Bible and evolution, because they think science has
proven evolution to be a fact.
These end timers believe that "scholars" have proved
late dates. When they realize that they are all dated
before 70 A.D., that leaves them with some real
problems. After all, if the temple was still standing,
then it isn't a third temple being discussed in
Scripture, but rather, the one standing. Jesus said,
"Not one stone...". The Romans burned the temple and
afterward, took it apart, stone by stone, to retrieve
the melted gold that ran in between the stones (there
was a lot of gold in the temple). Yet the late date
end timers await a third temple, so that Jesus' words
can be fulfilled, even though He said them before the
current temple was burned and His words were fulfilled
in 70 A.D. to the letter.
So who is doing the Bible acrobatics here? :)
Thanks again for the post and for the links.
#
>>Hope that helps.
>
> Thank you. I appreciate it.
>
> The thing that people should come to understand, is
> that since the temple was still standing when the NT
> was written, the temple destruction speaks of that
> temple. Thus, we should not be waiting for a third
> temple.
Amongst the Jews (and others also) there is a desire to see a temple
rebuilt in Israel - for many reasons.
http://www.templeinstitute.org/main.htm
Pastor Dave
deep thoughts, # <9...@numbers.for.you> spake thusly:
>On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:35:09 GMT, Pastor Dave wrote:
No offense, but this is what I mean when I call end
timers, "newspaper prophets". What does this have to
do with what I said? What does that have to do with
the fact that the temple was still standing when the NT
was penned and Jesus' words were fulfilled to the
letter? Nothing. In fact, you didn't even address
what I said and snipped half of it.
Here it is again...
"Not one stone". That's just what the Romans did.
They did not leave one stone upon another. They burned
the temple and then pried apart each and every stone,
to retrieve the melted gold that ran between them.
Yet people are waiting for a third temple, so that "not
one stone will be left upon another". Interesting, no?
Look, if you want to believe something, then fine. But
don't show me a newspaper article, in an attempt to get
around Jesus' words and history. I'm sorry, but that's
what you're doing, when you snip out what He said and
history and show me an article.
#
>>> The thing that people should come to understand, is
>>> that since the temple was still standing when the NT
>>> was written, the temple destruction speaks of that
>>> temple. Thus, we should not be waiting for a third
>>> temple.
>>
>>Amongst the Jews (and others also) there is a desire to see a temple
>>rebuilt in Israel - for many reasons.
>>http://www.templeinstitute.org/main.htm
>
> No offense, but this is what I mean when I call end
> timers, "newspaper prophets". What does this have to
> do with what I said? What does that have to do with
> the fact that the temple was still standing when the NT
> was penned and Jesus' words were fulfilled to the
> letter? Nothing. In fact, you didn't even address
> what I said and snipped half of it.
You mistakenly think that I *have* to address some issue, when I merely
offer a comment regarding the third temple, spurred by your reference
above, that may be of interest.
Do you deny that the Jews desire to see a temple rebuilt in Israel?
Do you understand why there would be this desire from those who have
returned to the land?
Whether or not the temple was standing at the time of the writing of the NT
is irrelevant to whether the Jews will seek to build a new temple in
Israel.
Perhaps you are overly touchy and defensive on this subject, and cannot
appreciate that certain things will happen regardless of whether or not
they fit into your expectations of how things should be.
Pastor Dave
deep thoughts, # <9...@numbers.for.you> spake thusly:
>On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 12:12:35 GMT, Pastor Dave wrote:
>
>>>> The thing that people should come to understand, is
>>>> that since the temple was still standing when the NT
>>>> was written, the temple destruction speaks of that
>>>> temple. Thus, we should not be waiting for a third
>>>> temple.
>>>
>>>Amongst the Jews (and others also) there is a desire to see a temple
>>>rebuilt in Israel - for many reasons.
>>>http://www.templeinstitute.org/main.htm
>>
>> No offense, but this is what I mean when I call end
>> timers, "newspaper prophets". What does this have to
>> do with what I said? What does that have to do with
>> the fact that the temple was still standing when the NT
>> was penned and Jesus' words were fulfilled to the
>> letter? Nothing. In fact, you didn't even address
>> what I said and snipped half of it.
>
>You mistakenly think that I *have* to address some issue,
You do, when you respond to it. And especially when
you snip words out and paste in an article as if it
holds more weight than Scripture.
>when I merely
>offer a comment regarding the third temple, spurred by your reference
>above, that may be of interest.
No, you snipped what I said, so that your pasting of
that link would seem appropriate.
>Do you deny that the Jews desire to see a temple rebuilt in Israel?
>
>Do you understand why there would be this desire from those who have
>returned to the land?
>
>Whether or not the temple was standing at the time of the writing of the NT
>is irrelevant to whether the Jews will seek to build a new temple in
>Israel.
Oh, I see. So the Bible doesn't matter. The only
thing that matters is what the Jews today want. If the
Bible says something else, then too bad for the Bible,
huh?
The subject here is THE BIBLE, NOT THE NEWSPAPER!
>Perhaps you are overly touchy and defensive on this subject, and cannot
>appreciate that certain things will happen regardless of whether or not
>they fit into your expectations of how things should be.
And here is where you once again refer to the
newspaper, instead of the Bible. Saddam desired to see
America fall and the end timers believed he was it.
Yet where is he now?
Newspapers do not equal Biblical truth. If a third
temple ever gets built, that does not mean God said,
"Hey, just skip that last fulfillment. I didn't really
mean that one.". No, it only means that a third temple
was built, not that the Bible discussed a third temple.
When all you can respond with is newspaper prophecy,
then you should already know that your argument has
problems.
Athanasius
>Yet people are waiting for a third temple, so that "not
>one stone will be left upon another". Interesting, no?
Orthodox assert the Church is the Third temple and the last.
Athanasius
>Do you deny that the Jews desire to see a temple rebuilt in Israel?
Not all only some and mainly the fundies who have immigrated from new
york who brought with them the protestant concept of a third temple.
Former jews believedd the -state of Israel- was the third temple. For
example Golda Meir, whren Israel was threatened and was about to
unleash her planes on the tarmac loaded with nuclear bombs asserted
that "The third temple is threatened."
Much of this apparent third temple hype in israel is just to keep the
american fundie funds flowing in. Its a good source of revenue. They
have had plenty of time to build another temple, blow up the dome of
the rock mosque if they wanted , but no threy instead milk the golden
goose for generations of its golden eggs. :)
very wise these Jewish people. :)
Peace and grace
Pastor Dave
>On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 01:29:59 +1300, # <9...@numbers.for.you> wrote:
>
>>Do you deny that the Jews desire to see a temple rebuilt in Israel?
>
>Not all only some and mainly the fundies who have immigrated from new
>york who brought with them the protestant concept of a third temple.
>
>Former jews believedd the -state of Israel- was the third temple. For
>example Golda Meir, whren Israel was threatened and was about to
>unleash her planes on the tarmac loaded with nuclear bombs asserted
>that "The third temple is threatened."
>
>Much of this apparent third temple hype in israel is just to keep the
>american fundie funds flowing in. Its a good source of revenue. They
>have had plenty of time to build another temple, blow up the dome of
>the rock mosque if they wanted , but no threy instead milk the golden
>goose for generations of its golden eggs. :)
>
>very wise these Jewish people. :)
The Bible certainly does not speak of a third temple.
There may be one, but the Bible doesn't mention it.
These end timers think they can take the daily news and
wrap their Bible's around it. That's why I call them,
"newspaper prophets". Every time a new headline hits,
they tell us that event means the end. <chuckle>
Pastor Dave
>On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 12:12:35 GMT, Pastor Dave
><newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Yet people are waiting for a third temple, so that "not
>>one stone will be left upon another". Interesting, no?
>
>
>Orthodox assert the Church is the Third temple and the last.
See other post. There is no third temple mentioned in
Scripture.
#
>>Do you deny that the Jews desire to see a temple rebuilt in Israel?
>>
>>Do you understand why there would be this desire from those who have
>>returned to the land?
>>
>>Whether or not the temple was standing at the time of the writing of the NT
>>is irrelevant to whether the Jews will seek to build a new temple in
>>Israel.
>
> Oh, I see. So the Bible doesn't matter. The only
> thing that matters is what the Jews today want. If the
> Bible says something else, then too bad for the Bible,
> huh?
Now do the Jews believe that the Messiah has come?
Joseph Christianson
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 12:12:35 GMT, Pastor Dave
> <newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Yet people are waiting for a third temple, so that "not
>>one stone will be left upon another". Interesting, no?
>
> Orthodox assert the Church is the Third temple and the last.
In line with the following verses?
Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in
three days." The Jews replied, "It has taken fortysix years to build this
temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" But the temple he had
spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples
recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words
that Jesus had spoken.
John 2:19-22 NIV
Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in
you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought
at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.
1 Corinthians 6:19-20 NIV
The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its
parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all
baptized by one Spirit into one body - whether Jews or Greeks, slave or
free–and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
1 Corinthians 12:12-13 NIV
Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.
1 Corinthians 12:27 NIV
Bogus Fracture
> Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again
in
> three days." The Jews replied, "It has taken fortysix years to build
this
> temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" But the temple
he had
> spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his
disciples
> recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the
words
> that Jesus had spoken.
> John 2:19-22 NIV
This text is acutally the closest thing we have to evidence that Jesus
actually existed as a historical person. It is obvious what is going on
here. Jesus came promising political revolution and his movement
failed. Not willing to abandon faith in their leader, his followers
spiritualized his mission, reinterpreting his failed promises of a
restored political nation state of Israel as promises of hope for
eternal life.
The unification of eschatology and soteriolgy was the genius of the
first Christian theologians. The first generation of Christians could
hold onto hope even as their Temple was razed to the ground because
they believed that one day (any day now!) the fullness of time would
usher them into life everlasting.
BF
Pastor Dave
deep thoughts, # <9...@numbers.for.you> spake thusly:
>On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:48:34 GMT, Pastor Dave wrote:
The fact that they don't, should tell you that you
shouldn't be listening to their desire for a third
temple to figure out what the Bible says. You just
shot yourself in the foot.
#
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 12:15:47 +1300, after pondering
> deep thoughts, # <9...@numbers.for.you> spake thusly:
>
>>On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:48:34 GMT, Pastor Dave wrote:
>>
>>>>Do you deny that the Jews desire to see a temple rebuilt in Israel?
>>>>
>>>>Do you understand why there would be this desire from those who have
>>>>returned to the land?
>>>>
>>>>Whether or not the temple was standing at the time of the writing of the NT
>>>>is irrelevant to whether the Jews will seek to build a new temple in
>>>>Israel.
>>>
>>> Oh, I see. So the Bible doesn't matter. The only
>>> thing that matters is what the Jews today want. If the
>>> Bible says something else, then too bad for the Bible,
>>> huh?
>>
>>Now do the Jews believe that the Messiah has come?
>
> The fact that they don't, should tell you that you
> shouldn't be listening to their desire for a third
> temple to figure out what the Bible says.
Then there is the matter of the mosque that is currently where they would
like to build it, but that is another issue entirely.
PowerPoint
>On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 12:15:47 +1300, after pondering
>deep thoughts, # <9...@numbers.for.you> spake thusly:
>
>>On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:48:34 GMT, Pastor Dave wrote:
>>
>>>>Do you deny that the Jews desire to see a temple rebuilt in Israel?
>>>>
>>>>Do you understand why there would be this desire from those who have
>>>>returned to the land?
>>>>
>>>>Whether or not the temple was standing at the time of the writing of the NT
>>>>is irrelevant to whether the Jews will seek to build a new temple in
>>>>Israel.
>>>
>>> Oh, I see. So the Bible doesn't matter. The only
>>> thing that matters is what the Jews today want. If the
>>> Bible says something else, then too bad for the Bible,
>>> huh?
>>
>>Now do the Jews believe that the Messiah has come?
>
>The fact that they don't, should tell you that you
>shouldn't be listening to their desire for a third
>temple to figure out what the Bible says. You just
>shot yourself in the foot.
You dont' know the Bible, that much is obvious. And we see that you
know nothing about history. You opened your mouth and removed all
doubt, DD!
Pastor Dave
Okay, you go ahead and believe that you should look to
the daily news to get your information about the Bible.
You go ahead and continue to be a "newspaper prophet".
#
Actually Dave, I think the term used is "having a biblical worldview" -
assessing and examining things in the light of Scripture. You see that
although the Pharisees and Sadducees knew Scripture, they did not recognise
the Christ. Why is that?
He replied, "When evening comes, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the
sky is red,' and in the morning, 'Today it will be stormy, for the sky is
red and overcast.' You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but
you cannot interpret the signs of the times."
Matthew 16:2-3 NIV
Pastor Dave
No, the term is "newspaper prophet". That why the
supposed Biblical "end" keeps changing with the
newspaper for you people. Next month, it'll be
something else.
The fact is, that you could not show me where Scripture
mentions a third temple. And when I asked you to, you
showed me a news article. That's all the proof anyone
needs, to show where your doctrine comes from. It
isn't the Bible, it's the daily news.
Pastor Dave
deep thoughts, PowerPoint <bla...@sbcgbl.com> spake
thusly:
More hit & run accusations from the one who keep
running away from a debate with me.
Pastor Dave
deep thoughts, PowerPoint <bla...@sbcgbl.com> spake
thusly:
>On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 02:10:12 GMT, Pastor Dave
More hit & run accusations from the one who keep
running away from a debate with me.
PowerPoint
<newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
"Evasive Dave" tactic in action.
You do not understand the Bible. You have a misconception; not a
point. You opened your mouth and removed all doubt again, DD!
PowerPoint
And your doctrine, Dave? Look to the Bible!
1 Corinthians 15:34 - Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some
have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.
#
>>Actually Dave, I think the term used is "having a biblical worldview"
>
> No, the term is "newspaper prophet". That why the
> supposed Biblical "end" keeps changing with the
> newspaper for you people. Next month, it'll be
> something else.
Well Dave, those with a biblical worldview recognise that the underlying
human condition doesn't change. The events and circumstances may be
different, and it is about assessing and evaluating them in that light.
I didn't note any discussion of a Biblical "end" in this thread, other than
from yourself, merely a link that may have been of interest resulting from
*you* bringing up the topic of a third temple.
> The fact is, that you could not show me where Scripture
> mentions a third temple. And when I asked you to, you
> showed me a news article. That's all the proof anyone
> needs, to show where your doctrine comes from. It
> isn't the Bible, it's the daily news.
It would pay stick to the truth Dave, instead of distorting the facts.
My posting of the link was *not* provided in response to any demand from
you for Scriptural proof of a third temple.
As I have clearly mentioned previously, and for which you still seemingly
choose to remain oblivious to, is that the link was posted as a matter of
interest regarding a group of Jews who *do* wish to rebuild the temple in
Israel.
It would appear that all I have done in this instance is uncover a "raw
nerve" - a topic or issue that you are highly sensitised to - and that you
have over-reacted and become irrationally defensive.
P.S It would be appreciated if you could provide your viewpoint on the
United Nations, Secular Humanism and Inclusivist Ecumenicalism. Are such
groupings founded on, seeking to protect, furthering the cause of, and
implementing practices based upon Godly Christian values, and should
Christians embrace such groupings? If so, why so, or if not, why not?
Pastor Dave
deep thoughts, # <9...@numbers.for.you> spake thusly:
>On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:07:32 GMT, Pastor Dave wrote:
>
>>>Actually Dave, I think the term used is "having a biblical worldview"
>>
>> No, the term is "newspaper prophet". That why the
>> supposed Biblical "end" keeps changing with the
>> newspaper for you people. Next month, it'll be
>> something else.
>
>Well Dave, those with a biblical worldview recognise that the underlying
>human condition doesn't change. The events and circumstances may be
>different, and it is about assessing and evaluating them in that light.
So just keep changing what the Bible says, to fit the
newspaper, instead of just saying you were wrong.
>I didn't note any discussion of a Biblical "end" in this thread, other than
>from yourself, merely a link that may have been of interest resulting from
>*you* bringing up the topic of a third temple.
>
>> The fact is, that you could not show me where Scripture
>> mentions a third temple. And when I asked you to, you
>> showed me a news article. That's all the proof anyone
>> needs, to show where your doctrine comes from. It
>> isn't the Bible, it's the daily news.
>
>It would pay stick to the truth Dave, instead of distorting the facts.
>
>My posting of the link was *not* provided in response to any demand from
>you for Scriptural proof of a third temple.
I requested to know where the Bible mentions a third
temple. You posted more end times garbage, instead of
pointing me to a passage.
Pastor Dave
deep thoughts, # <9...@numbers.for.you> spake thusly:
>It would appear that all I have done in this instance is uncover a "raw
>nerve" - a topic or issue that you are highly sensitised to - and that you
>have over-reacted and become irrationally defensive.
Let's just say that I am tired of people twisting and
bending the Bible to fit the newspaper and their
vanity, which tells them that the Bible has to be all
about them, or it isn't of any use.
>P.S It would be appreciated if you could provide your viewpoint on the
>United Nations, Secular Humanism and Inclusivist Ecumenicalism. Are such
>groupings founded on, seeking to protect, furthering the cause of, and
>implementing practices based upon Godly Christian values, and should
>Christians embrace such groupings? If so, why so, or if not, why not?
The Bible does not address the United Nations and
humanism has been around for thousands of years.
#
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 16:12:30 +1300, after pondering
> deep thoughts, # <9...@numbers.for.you> spake thusly:
>
>>It would appear that all I have done in this instance is uncover a "raw
>>nerve" - a topic or issue that you are highly sensitised to - and that you
>>have over-reacted and become irrationally defensive.
>
> Let's just say that I am tired of people twisting and
> bending the Bible to fit the newspaper and their
> vanity, which tells them that the Bible has to be all
> about them, or it isn't of any use.
Well that concern is fair enough - just in this instance it was misplaced.
>>P.S It would be appreciated if you could provide your viewpoint on the
>>United Nations, Secular Humanism and Inclusivist Ecumenicalism. Are such
>>groupings founded on, seeking to protect, furthering the cause of, and
>>implementing practices based upon Godly Christian values, and should
>>Christians embrace such groupings? If so, why so, or if not, why not?
>
> The Bible does not address the United Nations and
> humanism has been around for thousands of years.
Do you have any difficulty applying Scripture to various aspects of your
life, just because a particular situation isn't expressly mentioned in
Scripture?
Surely if you have a Biblical worldview, you must be able to assess things
that happen in the world, from the light of Scripture with a Christian
perspective, and come to some conclusion as to whether or not such
groupings are those that we should embrace or reject. We are encouraged to
be discerning so that we are not deceived.
#
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 16:12:30 +1300, after pondering
> deep thoughts, # <9...@numbers.for.you> spake thusly:
>
>>On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:07:32 GMT, Pastor Dave wrote:
>>
>>>>Actually Dave, I think the term used is "having a biblical worldview"
>>>
>>> No, the term is "newspaper prophet". That why the
>>> supposed Biblical "end" keeps changing with the
>>> newspaper for you people. Next month, it'll be
>>> something else.
>>
>>Well Dave, those with a biblical worldview recognise that the underlying
>>human condition doesn't change. The events and circumstances may be
>>different, and it is about assessing and evaluating them in that light.
>
> So just keep changing what the Bible says, to fit the
> newspaper, instead of just saying you were wrong.
I haven't noticed anywhere where I have changed what the Bible says to fit
the newspaper - have you got an example that you could share, or is this
more dishonesty from you?
>>I didn't note any discussion of a Biblical "end" in this thread, other than
>>from yourself, merely a link that may have been of interest resulting from
>>*you* bringing up the topic of a third temple.
>>
>>> The fact is, that you could not show me where Scripture
>>> mentions a third temple. And when I asked you to, you
>>> showed me a news article. That's all the proof anyone
>>> needs, to show where your doctrine comes from. It
>>> isn't the Bible, it's the daily news.
>>
>>It would pay stick to the truth Dave, instead of distorting the facts.
>>
>>My posting of the link was *not* provided in response to any demand from
>>you for Scriptural proof of a third temple.
>
> I requested to know where the Bible mentions a third
> temple. You posted more end times garbage, instead of
> pointing me to a passage.
After posting a link about those who wish to rebuild the temple - *not* in
response to any demand for Scriptural proof from you, but merely as a
matter of interest after *you* brought up the topic of the third temple - I
merely pointed out that;
FACT. yes there are Jews who wish to rebuild the temple (as evidenced by
the Temple Institute link);
FACT. whether or not a temple was standing at the time of the writing of
the NT is irrelevant to whether the Jews will seek to build a new temple in
Israel (as evidenced by the first fact above);
FACT. there is a mosque currently where they would like to build it;
FACT. there are Jews who do not believe that the Messiah has come
Which of these facts are "end times garbage"?
In your responses so far in this thread, the impression given is that you
have become highly irrational and overly defensive of what appears to be
some pet topic for which you are overly sensitised. Perhaps it's time to
calm down and consider what *is* said, rather than what you *think* is
said.
Pastor Dave
All of them, when you try to make them part of Biblical
prophecy, which is what we both know you're doing.
>In your responses so far in this thread, the impression given is that you
>have become highly irrational and overly defensive of what appears to be
>some pet topic for which you are overly sensitised. Perhaps it's time to
>calm down and consider what *is* said, rather than what you *think* is
>said.
Are you going to show me where the Bible talks about a
third temple, which is what we both know you believe
(or you wouldn't have bothered posting about it), or
not?
Pastor Dave
deep thoughts, # <9...@numbers.for.you> spake thusly:
>Surely if you have a Biblical worldview, you must be able to assess things
>that happen in the world, from the light of Scripture with a Christian
>perspective, and come to some conclusion as to whether or not such
>groupings are those that we should embrace or reject. We are encouraged to
>be discerning so that we are not deceived.
Only if Scripture is discussing them. You have not
shown that to be the case.
Pastor Dave
deep thoughts, # <9...@numbers.for.you> spake thusly:
>On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 14:44:59 GMT, Pastor Dave wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 16:12:30 +1300, after pondering
>> deep thoughts, # <9...@numbers.for.you> spake thusly:
>>
>>>It would appear that all I have done in this instance is uncover a "raw
>>>nerve" - a topic or issue that you are highly sensitised to - and that you
>>>have over-reacted and become irrationally defensive.
>>
>> Let's just say that I am tired of people twisting and
>> bending the Bible to fit the newspaper and their
>> vanity, which tells them that the Bible has to be all
>> about them, or it isn't of any use.
>
>Well that concern is fair enough - just in this instance it was misplaced.
>
>>>P.S It would be appreciated if you could provide your viewpoint on the
>>>United Nations, Secular Humanism and Inclusivist Ecumenicalism. Are such
>>>groupings founded on, seeking to protect, furthering the cause of, and
>>>implementing practices based upon Godly Christian values, and should
>>>Christians embrace such groupings? If so, why so, or if not, why not?
>>
>> The Bible does not address the United Nations and
>> humanism has been around for thousands of years.
>
>Do you have any difficulty applying Scripture to various aspects of your
>life, just because a particular situation isn't expressly mentioned in
>Scripture?
Then you admit that the United Nations is not mentioned
in Scripture. Yet you promote the idea of being part
of the prophecies. And if the U.N. falls, then you
will do the same with the next organization. As I
said, "newspaper prophet".