Who Wrote the Gospels and When?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1165
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Who Wrote the Gospels and When?

Post #1

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

.

I am creating this thread because I believe it deserves its own space. Two wars (debates) were fought on the "Why Do You Really Believe" thread created by POI. The two wars..

1. The universe and cosmology

2. The Authorship and Dating of the New Testament (main focus; the Gospels)

Now, I am all for one conversation leading to another, but it seemed as if the two topics were getting convoluted and there needed to be a place for both topics to thrive.

Let me also point out that history has always been my favorite subject, and even more so as it pertains to my faith (Christianity). So I am always delighted to discuss history, dating, and just in general trying to decipher and unpack events of the past...especially if it involves apologetics.

This thread focuses on #2, as I respond to post #124 from AlexxcJRO...
Last edited by We_Are_VENOM on Fri Jan 14, 2022 12:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1165
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: Who Wrote the Gospels and When?

Post #11

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

Miles wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 3:17 am While there's a bit of difference of opinion, all the sources I visited put the latest date at least at A.D. 100. Five examples::
"The Gospels were written between the dates c. 70 CE and c. 100 CE."
source

". . . Suggested dates for the writing of the Gospel of Matthew range from as early as A.D. 40 to as late as A.D. 140. "
source

"The four canonical gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—were all composed within the Roman Empire between 70 and 110 CE (± five to ten years)"
source

"When were the Canonical Gospels written? Christian apologists and most lay Christians assume on the basis of 4th century Church teaching that the gospels were written by the Evangelists c. 50-65 AD, but the scholarly consensus is that they are the work of unknown Christians and were composed c. 68-110 AD."
source

"The various dates most widely held as possible writing dates of the Gospel are between A.D. 40 – 140."
source
I have a couple things to say about this...

First of all, even in your sources you provide, the date ranges are quite broad. I mean, cmon, between 40-140 AD? lol.

That is like someone asking...

Person A: When did Michael Jordan score his 20,000th point?

Person B: I don't know, but somewhere between 1984-2004.

Yeah, tell me something I don't know. LOL.

Second, do you know what such broad timeframes means? It means that my timeframe is also included in there, so you can't completely rule it out, even by your own sources.

Third, and the most important point, is the fact that unlike science or math, to which both may be too complex for the average joe schmoe to follow, this is history...and history inquiry isn't that complex.

I said that to say; typically, those scholars are simply analyzing data, which is usually written documents, and drawing conclusions from the data. Easy peasy.

No complex mathematical equations or theorems to consider, and I (we, you and I) can do the same thing. We can look at the same documents and draw our own conclusions just as they do.

So I ask you the same question I asked Alex: it is fine to appeal to Google in your searches, and copy/paste stuff on the forum. Cool. But can you post something where a so called scholar actually makes a case as to why it is within reason to date the writing of the Gospels after 70AD (and well into the 2nd century AD)?

I'd like to see the case made. I've already presented my case, and if that is the best you've got (specifically, from Alex), then I am compelled to stick to my pre-70AD timeframe.
Miles wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 3:17 am Yes. Me. Me. If you simply take the earliest dates from the five examples I gave above, they average out at 57.6 AD. Now, assuming that the age of the writers of the gospels were at least 20 years old, that means they were likely to be at least 77 years old when they wrote their stories, which is extremely unlikely because the average age expectancy at the time was only 30-35 years. Point being, it's almost a certainty that none were written by eyewitnesses because at the time of all the Jesus events they would not have been born yet.
Oh, so here we are again with the "average age expectancy at the time was X" thing.

First of all, I simply don't believe that 30-35 was the average life expectancy thing. I just don't.

Second, lets consider..

Paul: Paul died around 67AD, making him in his early 60's when he died.

Philo of Alexandria: was in his mid 70's when he died.

James (brother of Jesus): was obviously over 35 when he died (he died in the 60's AD).

Mary Magdalene: was obviously over 35 when she died, as she was at Jesus' crucifixion, and Jesus himself was 33 when he was crucified.

Josephus: was in his early 60's when he died.

Hillel the Elder: Lived to be over 100.

So, this average age stuff is completely BOGUS...and notice that none of those mentioned were emperors or part of any Roman aristocracy, so you can't "that is because X person was an emperor, so he had access to health and medicine stuff that lower class citizens didn't have."

No
Miles wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 3:17 am Which, like I said, the stories would have had to been passed down, and almost certainly orally.
Obviously, it would be passed down orally before the written material had surfaced.
Miles wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 3:17 am Then I leave it to you to substantiate this claim. What is false about my "premise"? "Prove" that eyewitness accounts of that time were not handed down "principally through oral tradition," AND that such a process is reliable, AND that there are not many contradictory elements among the four stories.
As I stated before, while the apostles were alive and spreading the Gospel throughout empire, they were doing so orally. Before they died, they apparently made sure their testimonies were put in print so that and that their testimonies would precede when they were no longer here to spread the message.

And that is exactly what happened.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

Online
User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1948
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 361 times
Been thanked: 848 times

Re: Who Wrote the Gospels and When?

Post #12

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #11]
First of all, I simply don't believe that 30-35 was the average life expectancy thing. I just don't.
This may help:

https://ourworldindata.org/life-expecta ... nterpreted

If a lot of people die just after birth or in early childhood (as was much more common long ago than today) then the average life expectancy can be a lower number even if a significant number of people live to much older ages. And there is cohort expectancy and period expectancy (more commonly used). If you look at average life expectancy once someone reaches a given age (eg. 10) it will be higher than if you include everyone. From the link above"

"In societies with high infant mortality rates many people die in the first few years of life; but once they survive childhood, people often live much longer. Indeed, this is a common source of confusion in the interpretation of life expectancy figures: It is perfectly possible that a given population has a low life expectancy at birth, and yet has a large proportion of old people."
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1165
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: The Authorship and Dating of the New Testament (main focus; The Gospels)

Post #13

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:02 am We are talking about what “respective authors of those sacred writings” means.
What the Catholics are saying.
Please don’t go off point.
Q: Are you doing this on purpose or you cannot keep being on point?
Q: How does “authors of those sacred writings” not mean literal writers of the books? :?
I am not sure exactly what you are talking about here. We both acknowledge that the books are anonymous. I cannot conclusively say who wrote what.

But what I can do is draw a conclusion based on other evidences that I am presented with, which is what is being done.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:02 am
Straw man.
Never the new testament scholar says “stopped from knowing”. Please read again.
With all due respect, sir; you are being disingenuous.

That is exactly what you are implying...you threw out a weak hypothesis, offering a counter-argument to my "destruction of Jerusalem" thing by postulating "well, perhaps the reason the destruction of Jerusalem wasn't mentioned is because the authors were writing decades after the fact in far away lands", which implies that because of those reasons, they did not know about what happened in Jerusalem in 70ad.

You are indeed implying that they (authors) were stopped from knowing due to their ignorance.

The counter-argument is weak anyway, and is more of an insult to me by even responding to it.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:02 am
"Gospel of Matthew has a developed Christology, which suggests a late date towards the end of the first century".
I just completely disagree...if anything, the Gospel of John has the most "developed" Christology than any of the other Gospels.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:02 am Non-sequitur.
It does not follow from the fact that Paul believed Jesus was divine that therefore there was no contrary belief among Christians(that Jesus was not divine).
Straw man, because that wasn't the point being made.

The point was; you were claiming that the legend of Jesus (particularly, his divinity) was something that developed later and I mentioned that this is false because Paul believed Jesus was divine, and his writings predate the Gospels, which is contrary to the "later" argument that you present.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:02 am As Paul mentions himself there were other opinions contrary to himself.
Examination of the letters of Paul does not prove that the entire early Church believed in the divinity of Jesus.
Which once again, goes back to my point of Paul dispelling false teachings, the ones that were BROUGHT TO HIS ATTENTION.

Do you remember when I said that?

"the ones that were brought to his attention".
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:02 am Saying it proves its fallacious.
The embellishment doesn’t disappear though which proves the mechanism of altering the stories. Which brings into question the whole “story remained intact” which is my real point not your straw-man concoction.
What embellishment?

As I previously said, as long as the original disciples were around during the time in question, it would have been difficult for any false teachers/teachings to stick...because any questionable teachings that were being pushed into the church, church leaders would say..

"Well, lets see what Paul has to say about this." And Paul would speak on the matter.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:02 am Q: What logic is that? :?
Q: If I plagiarized someone work and added something have I not copied therefore because there is something extra? 😊

Every plagiarism has something extra to the copied work.
The extra stuff does not disprove the plagiarism.
The fact remains: you don’t have independent testimonial with independent sources but interdependence testimonials no matter how many times you nod in disbelief.
As I stated before, if Mark and Matthew were both tasked with giving an account of Jesus' 3 year earthly ministry, then there is only so much you they can say before the stories overlap.

Second, perhaps the reason Matthew copied from Mark is because he viewed Mark as a reliable source (so did Luke)...and obviously, since Mark was a friend of Peter, that would make Mark a reliable source, considering Mark's source was Peter, who was one of Jesus' right hand man.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:02 am “Mathew” is more magical then “Mark.
Based on what?
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:02 am “Mark works” is more magical probably then the previous orally told story.
Based on what?
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:02 am I never said story originated down with writer of “Mark”.
?
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:02 am I just pointed out the mechanism of embellishment: you have an empty tomb and claims of resurrection and then you have actual encounters and ascension.
And therefore this mechanism may have been at work before. Ergo the whole from banal story to super magical story.
Sorry, but that just makes no sense whatsoever, and is in fact a non sequitur.

Empty tomb and claims of resurrections, followed by actual encounters.

How does it then follow that therefore, "this mechanism may have been at work before".

Makes no sense.

And this is the second time you've mentioned an ascension in the Gospels, when there is no ascension in the Gospels. SMH.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:02 am There are many suspicious things: writers writing in third person;
First off, the reason Mark and Luke write in third person is because they were writing on behalf of the eyewitnesses.

And the reason Matthew and John writes in third person was probably because of persecution..James, Peter, and Paul all were allegedly executed in the 60's AD...and history tells us that 60-70AD was a bad time for Christians, as the persecution was stronger than it had ever been since 33AD.

The spread of Christianity had apparently reached the highest office in the land (the Emperor Nero)...and the heat on Christians had increased.

So therefore, it wouldn't have been wise to attach your name to a Christian book during that decade, which is why it was probably written in the third person.

Heck, look at John's Gospel, he identifies himself as the "disciple that Jesus loved" and doesn't even mention his own name...that is how bad the persecution must have been.

That seems like a reasonable explanation as to why they were written in third person. Now you certainly disagree, but then again..

1. The books were written in third person

2. Therefore, the books were not written by eyewitnesses

is a non sequitur in itself.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:02 am Mark added final part
This is another non sequitur. Just because Mark as an added 12 verses in the end, doesn't mean that you throw away the entire 16 chapters of the book, deeming it as unreliable.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:02 am ; the embellishment of Matthew
?
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:02 am ; Paul mentions quarrel with other Christians in respect to theology;
I fail to see the point here.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:02 am no papyrus, manuscripts of the gospels dating before the first half of the 2nd century
Which presents no problem whatsoever to the reliability of the Gospels, or to my case that they were originally written much earlier.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:02 am , the apocryphal gospels.
Of whose existence is so irrelevant, the fact that they are even mentioned in this discussion is a mystery.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:02 am When someone its emotionally attached to something or someone they come with rationalisations because of cognitive dissonance.
Genetic fallacy.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:02 am If I say to someone her/his loved spouse lied about something and off course cognitive dissonance come into place and by cognitive reduction they devalue and discard conflicting knowledge.
One time its enough. When trust is broken is broken.

When one is proven to be a liar one cannot trust that someone fully again.
Let alone base ones entire life on that person truthfulness which your basically doing.
Who has lied here?
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:02 am Sir the guy in tomb said "Jesus has risen." Therefore he believed.
There is a difference between saying “Jesus has risen”(I saw his empty tomb and concluded he has risen”) and having actual encounters with Jesus.

Q: How is that not clear?
Well first of all, the belief didn't come until they saw the risen Jesus. So you are simply wrong here.

That much, is clear.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:02 am Don’t straw man.
I never claimed such a thing. That the author did not know or that is what really happened.
Please read again from the link I send.
Mentioning there may be other possibility, explanation its not claiming that possibility, explanation it’s the real thing.
Suggestion of a possibility its not akin to saying “ that has happened”.

Q: Do you make the distinction? Or do you want me to spell it to you again?
Don't know what you are talking about here.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:02 am Also it was the Christian scholar suggesting the idea not me.
The scholar also does not says the author did not know.
Guess what; I disagree with Christians too. They are not immune. If they say something I find to be WRONG, then they are disagreed with.

So, like I've been saying; pre-70AD.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:02 am
Q: How is this refuting that is more probable that when someone writes in third person about a guy name Matthew he is not that guy Matthew but just a person putting a oral tradition on written text?
“Matt. 9:9 As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,”a he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.” (NIV)
I already gave reasons why Matthew may have found it best to write in third person.

alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:02 am
This is ridiculous. :))

Sir I said there are early second century apocryphal gospel close to the dating of John.
Oh did you? I must of missed that. I disagree with the notion that John is dated early 2nd century.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:02 am You said and I quote: “Because they were not considered inspired and were actually written centuries later and could not have possibly been derived from apostles or friends of the apostles.”
I contested the whole were “actually written centuries later” by pointing that there are decades later then John(possible 110AD- meaning early 2d century ) being dated as 2d early century old. Q: Why was their perspective(early 2d century apocryphal gospel) not included if John (possible 110AD- meaning early 2d century ) was? Why did they were not to inspired? How did they choose the maximum point by which one gospel is eligible and one not?
Again, I do not hold to that late date of John's Gospel. So your point is moot. I cannot adequately answer a question based on what I believe to be a false premise.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:02 am I said: “while the oral traditions continued to circulate.”
You said: “I disagree with the oral traditions bit...no oral traditions pre 70AD.”

At a later date you said: “the book of Acts highlights the early preaching of the Gospel. Obviously, this was via oral transmission.

“1Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter”


In one time you say there no oral circulation and then you say there is oral circulation. Ergo contradiction. 8-)
Well first of all, oral tradition of what, exactly?

Early traditions of alleged Gospel authorship? Or early traditions of the belief in Jesus' resurrection?

I don't believe the latter was based off of early tradition, but the former, most certainly.

Second, you are conflating oral transmission with oral tradition, when they don't mean the same thing.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:02 am 1. The argument from contrariety does not go away with the above.

I am sorry.
What you said above does not make away with the point of there being mutually exclusive claims, being an oral tradition which contradicts Paul belief/theology/doctrine; with people claiming to have had their own personal spiritual experience same as Paul.

The argument from contrariety, first developed by David Hume in his mid-18th-century Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, notes that the contrary claims of competing religions(in our case competing sects of Christianity) are mutually exclusive and thus cannot all be true. Moreover, the testimonial "evidence"-personal experience for the truth of any one religion-sect (whether understood as testimony for the occurrence of public miracles or private religious experiences) is on an equal footing with the contrary testimonial evidence for any other religion-sect (such that the clash of equally credible testimonies yields a "he said, she said" situation). Since there are a multitude of competing religions-sects, and thus a multitude of (absent anything better than testimony) equally credible yet contrary testimonies, the probability that any given religion is true--and thus that any religion at all is true--is extraordinarily low. Consequently, it is highly probable that all religions are false. Although an argument from contrariety can be combined with an argument from religious confusion to demonstrate the probable nonexistence of God, it does not have to be; an argument from contrariety stands on its own as a strong argument for the falsity of all religions-sects.

So we have Paul personal anecdotal, experience, theology versus other sect personal anecdotal, experience, theology. [/size]
I fail to see the point made here.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:02 am 2.Also again pressing this important point.
Anecdotal personal experiences does not impress me and should not impress anyone.

“Anecdotal evidence is considered the least certain type of scientific information.[14] Researchers may use anecdotal evidence for suggesting new hypotheses, but never as validating evidence.[15]

Anecdotal evidence is often unscientific or pseudoscientific because various forms of cognitive bias may affect the collection or presentation of evidence. For instance, someone who claims to have had an encounter with a supernatural being or alien may present a very vivid story, but this is not falsifiable. This phenomenon can also happen to large groups of people through subjective validation.

Anecdotal evidence is also frequently misinterpreted via the availability heuristic, which leads to an overestimation of prevalence. Where a cause can be easily linked to an effect, people overestimate the likelihood of the cause having that effect (availability). In particular, vivid, emotionally charged anecdotes seem more plausible, and are given greater weight. A related issue is that it is usually impossible to assess for every piece of anecdotal evidence, the rate of people not reporting that anecdotal evidence in the population.

A common way anecdotal evidence becomes unscientific is through fallacious reasoning such as the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, the human tendency to assume that if one event happens after another, then the first must be the cause of the second. Another fallacy involves inductive reasoning. For instance, if an anecdote illustrates a desired conclusion rather than a logical conclusion, it is considered a faulty or hasty generalization.[16] For example, here is anecdotal evidence presented as proof of a desired conclusion:”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
Umm, sure.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:02 am
I never said all scholars.
The info I provided said most scholars.
Wiki says the following: “Like the rest of the New Testament, the four gospels were written in Greek.[30] The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70,[3] Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90,[4] and John AD 90–110.[5] Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses.[6] A few conservative scholars defend the traditional ascriptions or attributions, but for a variety of reasons the majority of scholars have abandoned this view or hold it only tenuously.[31]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel

So most scholars agree and a few conservative scholars don’t.
So I will ask again, for the third time. These "most" scholars that you appeal to...what are their reasons for giving later authorship dates for the Gospels?

Appealing to them is simply not enough.

Present the case; WHY? This the third time that I've asked you to present the case as to why the later dates are more viable than the early timeframe that I made a case for.

You are either unable or unwilling to do so.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:02 am
Q: Why is it better for them ?
Q: What has François Bovon, Brown Raymond, James R. Edwards, Ehrman Bart D, Bruce M. have to gain?

"Raymond Edward Brown was an American Catholic priest, a member of the Sulpician Fathers and a prominent biblical scholar. He was regarded as a specialist concerning the hypothetical "Johannine community", which he speculated contributed to the authorship of the Gospel of John, and he also wrote influential studies on the birth and death of Jesus. Brown was professor emeritus at Union Theological Seminary (UTS) in New York where he taught for 29 years. He was the first Catholic professor to gain tenure there, where he earned a reputation as a superior lecturer.[1 "

"François Bovon was a Swiss biblical scholar and historian of early Christianity. He was the Frothingham Professor Emeritus of the History of Religion at Harvard Divinity School."

"Bruce Manning Metzger was an American biblical scholar, Bible translator and textual critic who was a longtime professor at Princeton Theological Seminary and Bible editor who served on the board of the American Bible Society and United Bible Societies. He was a scholar of Greek, New Testament, and New Testament textual criticism, and wrote prolifically on these subjects. Metzger was one of the most influential New Testament scholars of the 20th century.[1][2][3]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/François_Bovon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_M._Metzger
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_E._Brown
Well maybe it isn't better for them...but I've yet to see a case being made as to why they draw such conclusions...which is what I am asking for.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:02 am
Can you show them please.
I am waiting.
Sure, when you provide me what I am asking for.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:02 am You said:”This would be similar to 2,000 years from now...someone saying that X person could not have lived to be 90 in 2022, because the average lifespan of a person was 78 in 2022.”
Key words: “someone saying that X person”. Ergo straw man.
X person not X persons.

Also life expectancy/ average lifespan of a person(78) is not the same as 2000 years before.
Also the use of the word “could” its wrong(another straw man) for I said unlikely not impossible sir.
First century life expectancy/ average lifespan of a person was far lower then today because of hard life was, lack of the medicine technology we have today, lack of knowledge of germs, viruses and a myriad of other things.
The argument is not that they could not lived 60-90, 80-100 but that is highly unlikely they all did considering the time. Plus with that whole persecution going on. Therefore making even more unlikely of all of them living very long lives.
Again, you say "...making it even more unlikely of all them living very long lives". You straw manned the first time you said this, which I pointed out...and then you straw man again by saying the same thing.

Last time...

I never said "all of them". I clearly stated (for the second time) that there were exceptions then as it is now.

Not to mention that I just simply don't buy the average age thing anyway. But even if I did, there were exceptions.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:02 am “In 2016, Gazzaniga published her research on more than 2,000 ancient Roman skeletons, all working-class people who were buried in common graves. The average age of death was 30, and that wasn’t a mere statistical quirk: a high number of the skeletons were around that age. Many showed the effects of trauma from hard labour, as well as diseases we would associate with later ages, like arthritis.”
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2018 ... -longevity
Ok, so take those 2,000...and lets say of those 2,000 skeletons, around 5 lived to be past the age of 60?

Seems realistic, doesn't it? Ok, and those 5 skeletons represent Peter, Matthew, John, and Paul. Like I said, exceptions.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:02 am Its irrelevant to the argument. The non-sequitur stays.
Just as I thought.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:02 am The miracle in that QA list is the resurrection of Christ.
Q: How was Paul an eyewitnesses ?
How was he not?
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:02 am
I never claimed I was right because most consensus of the scholar points to a certain way.
My argument is that is most likely that the consensus of the scholars points to the truth.
Most likely leaves room for doubt.
I admit the consensus maybe be wrong.
Q: Do you admit that maybe the consensus may be right and you wrong?
Can you please provide evidence of such a scholar that support your hypothesis.
I am waiting. 8-)
I am asking for a case to be made to support the consensus view. Are you going to present the case, or not?
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:02 am See the point above about Wikipedia and Wikipedia links references from above.
Or, instead of flooding the post with irrelevant material, perhaps you can simply provide actual stuff that is relevant to what I am asking.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:02 am Sir don’t bore with irrelevant nonsense and distractions.
LOL.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:02 am You made two claims: “ Papias, stated that Mark, a friend of Peter, wrote a Gospel....and early Church traditional has always attributed the Gospel of Mark to Mark, friend of Peter.” please provide the evidence.

Please copy paste the evidence, texts with links that show that such a thing exists(the papyrus, manuscripts analysis exists) that shows that Papias, stated that Mark, a friend of Peter, wrote a Gospel and that “Church traditional has always attributed the Gospel of Mark to Mark”.
As per forum rules: ”Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. “
I am waiting. 8-)
Negative.

I've had the daunting task of straining my eyes, trying to weed through all of the pasted mumbo you've been providing, most of which have been irrelevant to the discussion.

Now, I am simply asking you to give me stuff that I can actually use, and you refuse to do so.

When you give me what I ask, I will give you what you ask.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1165
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: Who Wrote the Gospels and When?

Post #14

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

DrNoGods wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 12:05 pm This may help:

https://ourworldindata.org/life-expecta ... nterpreted

If a lot of people die just after birth or in early childhood (as was much more common long ago than today) then the average life expectancy can be a lower number even if a significant number of people live to much older ages. And there is cohort expectancy and period expectancy (more commonly used). If you look at average life expectancy once someone reaches a given age (eg. 10) it will be higher than if you include everyone. From the link above"

"In societies with high infant mortality rates many people die in the first few years of life; but once they survive childhood, people often live much longer. Indeed, this is a common source of confusion in the interpretation of life expectancy figures: It is perfectly possible that a given population has a low life expectancy at birth, and yet has a large proportion of old people."
Sure, and that is all fine.

The point is; there are and there WERE exceptions. Seriously, this is like telling Betty White (RIP)..

"But Betty White, the average lifespan of a person living in this country is 78".

Her response..

"So what? They are not me. And I am not them".

In other words, what does that have to do with her?

Or, as Frank Turek once put it..

"You can't take aggregated data and apply it to individuals".
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

Online
User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1948
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 361 times
Been thanked: 848 times

Re: Who Wrote the Gospels and When?

Post #15

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #14]
The point is; there are and there WERE exceptions.
That is indeed the point I was making. Average life expectancy numbers can be shifted to lower values if there is a lot of infant mortality because it can include those deaths (if not specifically excluded). So even with a low average life expectancy there can be plenty of older people (older than the average life expectancy) in the population. One reason average life expectancies are higher now than centuries ago is because we have a lot fewer infant deaths, so not nearly as many deaths of 0-5 year olds are being averaged into the number.

Here's a look at ancient Rome:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demograph ... man_Empire
(scroll down to the Mortality section)

And another relevant article:

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2018 ... -longevity
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1165
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: Who Wrote the Gospels and When?

Post #16

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

DrNoGods wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 1:54 pm [Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #14]
The point is; there are and there WERE exceptions.
That is indeed the point I was making.
Then perhaps you should be sharing that info with him, not me..

It would be nice if, for a CHANGE, you guys find a way to police each other up from time to time instead of this "atheist united" stuff you have going on.

Quick to correct a theist, but when an atheist colleague spews nonsense, no one says anything.

How about an occasional "hey buddy, what you are saying isn't true".

Does this ever happen on this forum?
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3381
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 263 times
Been thanked: 939 times

Re: Who Wrote the Gospels and When?

Post #17

Post by Miles »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 10:40 am
Miles wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 3:17 am While there's a bit of difference of opinion, all the sources I visited put the latest date at least at A.D. 100. Five examples::
"The Gospels were written between the dates c. 70 CE and c. 100 CE."
source

". . . Suggested dates for the writing of the Gospel of Matthew range from as early as A.D. 40 to as late as A.D. 140. "
source

"The four canonical gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—were all composed within the Roman Empire between 70 and 110 CE (± five to ten years)"
source

"When were the Canonical Gospels written? Christian apologists and most lay Christians assume on the basis of 4th century Church teaching that the gospels were written by the Evangelists c. 50-65 AD, but the scholarly consensus is that they are the work of unknown Christians and were composed c. 68-110 AD."
source

"The various dates most widely held as possible writing dates of the Gospel are between A.D. 40 – 140."
source
I have a couple things to say about this...

First of all, even in your sources you provide, the date ranges are quite broad. I mean, cmon, between 40-140 AD? lol.

That is like someone asking...

Person A: When did Michael Jordan score his 20,000th point?

Person B: I don't know, but somewhere between 1984-2004.

Yeah, tell me something I don't know. LOL.

Second, do you know what such broad timeframes means? It means that my timeframe is also included in there, so you can't completely rule it out, even by your own sources.

Third, and the most important point, is the fact that unlike science or math, to which both may be too complex for the average joe schmoe to follow, this is history...and history inquiry isn't that complex.

I said that to say; typically, those scholars are simply analyzing data, which is usually written documents, and drawing conclusions from the data. Easy peasy.

No complex mathematical equations or theorems to consider, and I (we, you and I) can do the same thing. We can look at the same documents and draw our own conclusions just as they do.

So I ask you the same question I asked Alex: it is fine to appeal to Google in your searches, and copy/paste stuff on the forum. Cool. But can you post something where a so called scholar actually makes a case as to why it is within reason to date the writing of the Gospels after 70AD (and well into the 2nd century AD)?

I'd like to see the case made. I've already presented my case, and if that is the best you've got (specifically, from Alex), then I am compelled to stick to my pre-70AD timeframe.
Your only disagreement with my dates was "I disagree. No later than 70AD." which is the only point I was addressing. All five of my resources put the latest date at AD 100 or more, and all your above comments are just so much irrelevant backpedaling. Now, if there are other issues you'd like to discuss, fine, just bring them up in a separate thread.


Miles wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 3:17 am Yes. Me. Me. If you simply take the earliest dates from the five examples I gave above, they average out at 57.6 AD. Now, assuming that the age of the writers of the gospels were at least 20 years old, that means they were likely to be at least 77 years old when they wrote their stories, which is extremely unlikely because the average age expectancy at the time was only 30-35 years. Point being, it's almost a certainty that none were written by eyewitnesses because at the time of all the Jesus events they would not have been born yet.
Oh, so here we are again with the "average age expectancy at the time was X" thing.

First of all, I simply don't believe that 30-35 was the average life expectancy thing. I just don't.
Of course you don't because it puts luff in your sail; however, here are two sources that confirm my statement---I won't bother to cite anymore because you seem oblivious to conclusions that differ from your own. AND PLEASE NOTE THAT THESE ARE AVERAGES. IF YOU KNOW THE WRITERS OF THE GOSPELS WERE OLDER THAN THE AVERAGE THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME UP WITH EVIDENCE. WHAT YA GOT?


"For example, in Palestine, in Jesus’ time, the average life expectancy was 30-35 years."
source

"Those living in the days of Jesus (as mentioned in the New Testament) had an average lifespan that was similar to human lifespans predating the advent of modern medicine and technology. As such, the average life expectancy was around 30 to 35 years , similar to the lifespan of those in Classical Rome."
sources

Second, lets consider..

Paul: Paul died around 67AD, making him in his early 60's when he died.

Philo of Alexandria: was in his mid 70's when he died.

James (brother of Jesus): was obviously over 35 when he died (he died in the 60's AD).

Mary Magdalene: was obviously over 35 when she died, as she was at Jesus' crucifixion, and Jesus himself was 33 when he was crucified.

Josephus: was in his early 60's when he died.

Hillel the Elder: Lived to be over 100.

So, this average age stuff is completely BOGUS...and notice that none of those mentioned were emperors or part of any Roman aristocracy, so you can't "that is because X person was an emperor, so he had access to health and medicine stuff that lower class citizens didn't have."

No
And six hand selected examples are suppose to negate an average? C'mon, I learned this fallacy before I even got to college.


Miles wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 3:17 am Then I leave it to you to substantiate this claim. What is false about my "premise"? "Prove" that eyewitness accounts of that time were not handed down "principally through oral tradition," AND that such a process is reliable, AND that there are not many contradictory elements among the four stories.
As I stated before, while the apostles were alive and spreading the Gospel throughout empire, they were doing so orally. Before they died, they apparently made sure their testimonies were put in print so that and that their testimonies would precede when they were no longer here to spread the message.
But none of this "proves" my "premise" is false. Want to try again?

And that is exactly what happened.
And you know this is exactly what happened. because, what? You had a divine communication from god? You got it from a ouija board? You have your own special edition of the New Testament that makes such a statement in the Book of Venom? I await your answer.

.

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1165
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: Who Wrote the Gospels and When?

Post #18

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

Miles wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 2:59 pm
Your only disagreement with my dates was "I disagree. No later than 70AD." which is the only point I was addressing.
Yeah, I said I disagree because I DISAGREE.

And why I disagree with any post-70AD timeframe was already laid out in a prior post.
Miles wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 2:59 pm All five of my resources put the latest date at AD 100 or more, and all your above comments are just so much irrelevant backpedaling.
Yeah, and I simply disagree with your sources in light of my sources.
Miles wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 2:59 pm Of course you don't because it puts luff in your sail;
Actually, it doesn't. I don't for ONE SECOND believe that the average lifespan was 35. But even if I did, my case is STILL solid..because there are always exceptions to the average.
Miles wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 2:59 pm however, here are two sources that confirm my statement---I won't bother to cite anymore because you seem oblivious to the judgment of others. AND PLEASE NOTE THAT THESE ARE AVERAGES. IF YOU KNOW THE WRITERS OF THE GOSPELS WERE OLDER THAN THE AVERAGE THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME UP WITH EVIDENCE. WHAT YA GOT?
That is nonsense. Again, you can't apply aggregated data to individuals. It is fallacious. This is like saying..

1. The average 3 point shooting percentage for an NBA player is 32%

2. Stephen Curry plays in the NBA

3. Therefore, Stephen Curry shoots 32% from 3 point range.

It is a non sequitur. It simply does not follow and it is therefore fallacious.

And since you challenge me to come up with evidence that the Gospel writers lived higher than the average age of life expectancy, then I challenge you to come up with evidence that they did NOT exceed the average age of life expectancy.

What ya got?
Miles wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 2:59 pm And six hand selected examples are suppose to negate an average?
If there were 6, then there were more...and I will give you 4 more hand selected examples...

Matthew
Mark
Luke
John

So make that a total of 10, on a growing list.
Miles wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 2:59 pm But none of this "proves" my "premise" is false. Want to try again?
Reading comprehension. I conceded the point that the information was handed down...first orally, and then in print.

Want to try reading what I said again?
Miles wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 2:59 pm And you know this is exactly what happened. because what? You had a divine communication from god? You read it in a comic book? You got it from a ouija board?
No, I got it from the early Church Fathers.

You see, they were more close to the scene in both time and geographical location, unlike skeptics living some 2,000 years later debating religion on online religious forums.
Miles wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 2:59 pm You have your own special edition of the New Testament that makes such a statement in the Book of Venom?
No, but I have the edition of the New Testament which states that "whoever does not believe in him (Christ) will not have eternal life".

That is the only edition I need.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3381
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 263 times
Been thanked: 939 times

Re: Who Wrote the Gospels and When?

Post #19

Post by Miles »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:04 pm
Miles wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 2:59 pm
Your only disagreement with my dates was "I disagree. No later than 70AD." which is the only point I was addressing.
Yeah, I said I disagree because I DISAGREE.

And why I disagree with any post-70AD timeframe was already laid out in a prior post.
Miles wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 2:59 pm All five of my resources put the latest date at AD 100 or more, and all your above comments are just so much irrelevant backpedaling.
Yeah, and I simply disagree with your sources in light of my sources.
Which are??? You will note that I provided five of mine and you've provided nada. Nothing. None.


Miles wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 2:59 pm Of course you don't because it puts luff in your sail;
Actually, it doesn't. I don't for ONE SECOND believe that the average lifespan was 35. But even if I did, my case is STILL solid..because there are always exceptions to the average.
Then all you have to do is prove the writers of the gospels are four of the exceptions. . . . . . . . We all await.

Miles wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 2:59 pm however, here are two sources that confirm my statement---I won't bother to cite anymore because you seem oblivious to the judgment of others. AND PLEASE NOTE THAT THESE ARE AVERAGES. IF YOU KNOW THE WRITERS OF THE GOSPELS WERE OLDER THAN THE AVERAGE THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME UP WITH EVIDENCE. WHAT YA GOT?
That is nonsense. Again, you can't apply aggregated data to individuals. It is fallacious. This is like saying..

1. The average 3 point shooting percentage for an NBA player is 32%

2. Stephen Curry plays in the NBA

3. Therefore, Stephen Curry shoots 32% from 3 point range.

It is a non sequitur. It simply does not follow and it is therefore fallacious.
This doesn't even make sense. Truthfully, I don't believe you know what a fallacious argument is.

And since you challenge me to come up with evidence that the Gospel writers lived higher than the average age of life expectancy, then I challenge you to come up with evidence that they did NOT exceed the average age of life expectancy.

What ya got?
Ever hear of the Burden of Proof? Here, from Fallacy In Logic: Think Critically & Make Better Decisions.


"Burden of proof fallacy (or shifting the burden of proof) is a logical fallacy that occurs when one abuses their burden of proof by attempting to shift it to someone else.

Who Has The Burden Of Proof?


In general, the person or party making an argument has the burden of proof to justify it (whether they argue that something is true or false). This applies, in particular, to situations where someone challenges a prevailing status quo or a well-established idea.

In a debate, the burden of proof lies typically with the person making a claim; [that would be YOU in this case] the opposing side doesn’t have a burden of proof until evidence has been provided for the original argument.[that would be ME in this case] However, once the evidence has been provided, it’s up to the opposing side to show if the evidence is insufficient. If the opposing side argues that your claim is invalid, then, in turn, the burden of proof is on them to justify the disagreement. "
source

Miles wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 2:59 pm And six hand selected examples are suppose to negate an average?
If there were 6, then there were more...and I will give you 4 more hand selected examples...

Matthew
Mark
Luke
John

So make that a total of 10, on a growing list.
Fine, just present your evidence to show your not pulling these "facts" out of your hat.

Miles wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 2:59 pm But none of this "proves" my "premise" is false. Want to try again?
Reading comprehension. I conceded the point that the information was handed down...first orally, and then in print.

Want to try reading what I said again?
Just so I understand you correctly, the only reason you believed my statement was fallacious was because you didn't believe the information was handed down orally?
Great! It's a win for both of us. :hug:

Miles wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 2:59 pm And you know this is exactly what happened. because what? You had a divine communication from god? You read it in a comic book? You got it from a ouija board?
No, I got it from the early Church Fathers.

You see, they were more close to the scene in both time and geographical location, unlike skeptics living some 2,000 years later debating religion on online religious forums.
Interesting. Just where could I get ahold of these early Church Fathers, or at least their writings?


Miles wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 2:59 pm You have your own special edition of the New Testament that makes such a statement in the Book of Venom?
No, but I have the edition of the New Testament which states that "whoever does not believe in him (Christ) will not have eternal life".

That is the only edition I need.
Cool, I guess, but I note that you're not saying that "whoever believes in him will have eternal life," or isn't this the case? That money must change hands as well or something else must happen?


.

User avatar
Difflugia
Guru
Posts: 2312
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1864 times
Been thanked: 1377 times

Re: Who Wrote the Gospels and When?

Post #20

Post by Difflugia »

Miles wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 6:19 pmInteresting. Just where could I get ahold of these early Church Fathers, or at least their writings?
WikiSource or CCEL. There are also good scans of various editions at Internet Archive.

Apologists are fond of quoting the Church Fathers as "early evidence" that some church tradition or other is based on something substantial. The argument is usually something to the effect that these learned men wouldn't have trusted an unsubstantiated rumor that they heard from some rando. On the other hand, the Church Fathers weren't any better at documenting their sources than modern apologists and their writings include such gems as this masterpiece of logic from Irenaeus:
It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the “pillar and ground” of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh. From which fact, it is evident that the Word, the Artificer of all, He that sitteth upon the cherubim, and contains all things, He who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit. As also David says, when entreating His manifestation, “Thou that sittest between the cherubim, shine forth.” For the cherubim, too, were four-faced, and their faces were images of the dispensation of the Son of God. For, [as the Scripture] says, “The first living creature was like a lion,” symbolizing His effectual working, His leadership, and royal power; the second [living creature] was like a calf, signifying [His] sacrificial and sacerdotal order; but “the third had, as it were, the face as of a man,”—an evident description of His advent as a human being; “the fourth was like a flying eagle,” pointing out the gift of the Spirit hovering with His wings over the Church. And therefore the Gospels are in accord with these things, among which Christ Jesus is seated.
My preferred pronouns are he, him, and his.

Post Reply