Observations on Dating
The title of this post may be a little misleading. It's not about social dating between couples. It's actually about the dating of historical documents, especially in reference to the gospels. I've been doing a lot of thinking about this after reading The Da Vinci Code this weekend.
Liberal scholars have for a long time dated the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) some time after 70 AD. This means that they must have been written several decades after Christ by folks that didn't really even know Jesus, and thus they must not be very reliable. The reason for this late date comes from a philosophical presupposition that impacts their scholarship. That presupposition is that the supernatural cannot happen. Absolutely.
This plays into their dating of the synoptics since in each of these gospels Jesus predicts the fall of Jerusalem which took place in 70 AD. So here's how they argue. The supernatural cannot happen. Thus, predictive prophecy can't happen. Thus, the synoptics had to be written after the fall of Jerusalem and not before it.
However, there are good reasons to believe that this reasoning is absolutely false. Let me demonstrate.
It is generally widely accepted that the Apostle Paul died during the reign of the Roman emperor Nero in 64 AD.
It's also generally accepted by all that the book of Acts was written by Luke before the death of Paul. This makes great sense because the book of Acts leaves off with Paul's imprisonment and immending trial. If something as important as Paul's death had taken place, Luke would have definitely recorded it. So that means that Paul hadn't died yet. So that means that Acts must have been written before 64 AD.
That leads us to another reasonable conclusion. The gospel of Luke must have been written before Paul's death since most folks will agree that Luke's gospel was written before Acts (cf. Acts 1:1).
And most scholars agree that Luke was the last of the synoptic gospels to be written. They base this on Luke 1:1-4 and on a detailed comparision of the gospels. That means that all of the synoptic gospels were written before 70 AD.
This seems to make good sense to me and it's a compelling argument for an early dating of the synoptic gospels.
Liberal scholars have for a long time dated the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) some time after 70 AD. This means that they must have been written several decades after Christ by folks that didn't really even know Jesus, and thus they must not be very reliable. The reason for this late date comes from a philosophical presupposition that impacts their scholarship. That presupposition is that the supernatural cannot happen. Absolutely.
This plays into their dating of the synoptics since in each of these gospels Jesus predicts the fall of Jerusalem which took place in 70 AD. So here's how they argue. The supernatural cannot happen. Thus, predictive prophecy can't happen. Thus, the synoptics had to be written after the fall of Jerusalem and not before it.
However, there are good reasons to believe that this reasoning is absolutely false. Let me demonstrate.
It is generally widely accepted that the Apostle Paul died during the reign of the Roman emperor Nero in 64 AD.
It's also generally accepted by all that the book of Acts was written by Luke before the death of Paul. This makes great sense because the book of Acts leaves off with Paul's imprisonment and immending trial. If something as important as Paul's death had taken place, Luke would have definitely recorded it. So that means that Paul hadn't died yet. So that means that Acts must have been written before 64 AD.
That leads us to another reasonable conclusion. The gospel of Luke must have been written before Paul's death since most folks will agree that Luke's gospel was written before Acts (cf. Acts 1:1).
And most scholars agree that Luke was the last of the synoptic gospels to be written. They base this on Luke 1:1-4 and on a detailed comparision of the gospels. That means that all of the synoptic gospels were written before 70 AD.
This seems to make good sense to me and it's a compelling argument for an early dating of the synoptic gospels.
posted by Daniel | 11:02 AM
4 Comments:
I wasn't aware of this Daniel thanks for the education. I read your Luke 1:1-4 and noticed this.
it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first,
That is a very braisen thing to say isn't it.
Thanks for taking the time to answer the questions at puritan belief I gave my answers as well.
thanks.
The world is always trying to attack the integrity of the scripture.
It is also interesting that in recent times secular historians have tried to abolish using BC(Before Christ) and AD(Ano-Domini = in the year of our lord) for dating. Trying to replace them with BCE (Before the Common Era) and CE (Common Era) thay have failed with this though.
MDM
Very nice work, Daniel. You have a clear line of reasoning with this. It works for me!
Very sound reasoning.
Post a Comment
<< Home